General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWAR ON WOMEN: Tennessee Arrests First Mother Under Its New Pregnancy Criminalization Law
The legislation, which officially took effect about a week ago, stipulates that “a woman may be prosecuted for assault for the illegal use of a narcotic drug while pregnant, if her child is born addicted to or harmed by the narcotic drug.” However, this may not actually apply to Loyola’s case. So far, there’s no evidence the young woman either used a narcotic drug or caused harm to her newborn child.
According to local news reports, Loyola tested positive for methamphetamine and admitted that she smoked that drug several days before giving birth. Meth is not considered to be a narcotic, which is a class of drugs that refers to opiates like heroin and prescription painkillers. Tennessee’s new law was passed specifically in response to fears about babies being exposed to opiates in utero, something that can lead to “Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome.”
“This law was sold as if it were just about illegal narcotics. But sure enough, the first case has nothing to do with illegal narcotics — and nothing actually to do with harm to anybody,” Lynn Paltrow, the executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW), one of the groups that’s firmly opposed to laws that criminalize drug use during pregnancy, told ThinkProgress. “There’s no injury. There’s just a positive drug test.”
The opposition to the new state law, which is the first of its kind in the country, isn’t driven solely by Paltrow’s group. Every major medical organization — including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American Public Health Association — has come out against efforts to arrest pregnant women who use drugs. A diverse coalition of reproductive rights and criminal justice groups in Tennessee launched a huge campaign against the proposed legislation, called “Healthcare Not Handcuffs,” to point out that threatening women with criminal charges dissuades them from coming forward to get the medical help they need.
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/07/11/3459150/tennessee-arrest-pregnancy-criminalization/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,580 posts)Of course she should not be smoking meth, during pregnancy or at anytime...but to arrest her is just wrong.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)
Brigid
(17,621 posts)Lynn Paltrow refers to the "criminal punishment system." That's the perfect name for it.
librechik
(30,674 posts)that it's a poor example of the war on women. Most everybody thinks that mother's behavior would be abuse of the fetus or child.
The criminal justice system is a stupid place to solve problems like this. It's a public health issue[ and criminalizing it is a sure sign of right wing conservatives distorting the law for their own propagandistic advantage.
The war on women is where there is no question that the woman's being punished for NOTHING MORE than being born a woman.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)How many MEN will get arrested because of this law?
"Abuse of fetus"???? You've got to be kidding...
This is CLASSIC war on women.
librechik
(30,674 posts)it worked on you.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)You may not like the woman's behavior and find it irresponsible. You might suspect what she did harmed the fetus.
But the facts are that it probably did no harm.
And the facts are that women have to have a drug test at delivery. And that drug test can be used to arrest them for "assault". Now, maybe in your Orwellian world this kind of punitive action against women (those whose conduct you dislike) is OK. Your spotless middle class morality is noted. In mine, it is another burden on women, particularly the poor.
librechik
(30,674 posts)please go rejoin your demonic ilk, BiilZBub--if I say it aloud 3 times do you troll me in person with a puff of smoke?
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)Old Bill don't troll.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)What are the risks of methamphetamine abuse during pregnancy?
Our knowledge of the effects of methamphetamine abuse during pregnancy is limited because studies of this issue have used small samples and have not been able to account for the possibility that mothers used other drugs besides methamphetamine. But the available research points to increased rates of premature delivery, placental abruption (separation of the placental lining from the uterus), and various effects on babies prenatally exposed to methamphetamine, including small size, lethargy, and heart and brain abnormalities. A large ongoing NIDA-funded study is examining developmental outcomes in children born to mothers who abused methamphetamine. Thus far, researchers have found neurobehavioral problems such as decreased arousal and increased stress and subtle but significant attention impairments in these children.
http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/methamphetamine/what-are-risks-methamphetamine-abuse-during-pregnancy
http://www.acog.org/Resources-And-Publications/Committee-Opinions/Committee-on-Health-Care-for-Underserved-Women/Methamphetamine-Abuse-in-Women-of-Reproductive-Age
Methamphetamine use in pregnancy endangers the health of the woman and increases the risk of low birth weight and small for gestational age babies and such use may increase the risk of neurodevelopmental problems in children.
A single prenatal dose of methamphetamine -- commonly known as speed -- may be enough to cause long-term neurodevelopmental problems in babies, say University of Toronto researchers.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/07/050727063759.htm
Prenatal uses of methamphetamine, cocaine, and marijuana are all associated with increased risk of a variety of birth defects. The affected birth defects are primarily associated with particular organ systems.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17162495
http://www.ohsu.edu/marc/ORPostAdoptionResourceCenter.pdf
A child in the womb of a drug or alcohol abusing mother is exposed to the harmful substances
that cross the placenta. Some of the known risks of meth to the fetus are:
Birth defects
Growth retardation
Premature birth
Low birth rate
Brain lesions
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)You can't charge someone for "assault" for doing something that increases the risk of something happening. Of course drug usage can harm a fetus. But can you claim that one instance did so? Or even several? NO.
So, this law is anti woman, making what may not even have a victim be a criminal offense. In particular, this is targeted at poor women, which is an added injustice.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)The reality is that even one instance can do serious harm, per the Canadian study I cited.
The other reality is that it is unlikely that she did meth just that one, single time right before childbirth.
That said, as I wrote in my title, criminal charges are wrong imo.
"You can't charge someone for "assault" for doing something that increases the risk of something happening."
No, but you can charge somebody with assault for spiking drinks.
And you can charge them with child abuse, neglect or endangerment for giving drugs prenatally.
https://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/drugexposed.pdf
The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA)
requires States to have policies and procedures in place to
notify child protective services (CPS) agencies of substance exposed
newborns (SENs) and to establish a plan of safe care
for newborns identified as being affected by illegal substance
abuse or withdrawal symptoms resulting from prenatal drug
exposure.2 Several States currently address this requirement
in their statutes. Approximately 19 States and the District of
Columbia have specific reporting procedures for infants who
show evidence at birth of having been exposed to drugs,
alcohol, or other controlled substances; 12 States and the
District of Columbia include this type of exposure in their
definitions of child abuse or neglect.3
Some States specify in their statutes the response the CPS
Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)Effort into helping the women? I bet the state doesn't have a robust drug treatment program,
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)that pretty much leaves drug treatment as the remaining option, aside from walking away. 
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)If so, is smoking crystal meth one week before delivering the baby bad?
If yes, is criminalizing it a war on women? If so, why?
These are honest questions.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)This is another way of attempting to control women's bodies.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)Again, I am being serious here. I understand where you are coming from, but can also see the point when the damage done to the child due to drugs is so apparent as they are fighting for their life in the NICU.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)The law is being used as an excuse for asserting control over women.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)We can agree blowing crystal meth in a child's face is illegal and should be punished, even if there is no long term damage (I actually knew someone who did this). Is the fact that this same drug was running through the veins of the unborn fetus a day before birth make it less damaging or egregious?
And thanks for keeping this discussion civil. I am not trying to be argumentative. I truly struggle with forming an opinion on this.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)where the fetus is indirectly affected.
Are you aware that you can get a false positive to a meth test from taking a cold pill or asthma meds? How many women will go through the trauma of a false accusation due to widespread testing like this?
Yet this woman "admitted" to meth use. To whom? Her doctor? Was she read her rights before she gave her medical history? Should we have a law that discourages women from truthfully giving their medical history? Should we have a law that turns medical staff into an adjunct to the police department? Should we have a law that encourages women with drug problems to get abortions rather than risk jail for giving birth? Should we have a law that encourages women who have taken drugs to give birth at home, unattended, instead of in the hospital, where the doctor/police might turn her in?
moriah
(8,311 posts)My two youngest siblings were both profoundly affected by their mother's cocaine and alcohol abuse. They will NEVER be the same.
It's impossible to tell immediately after birth if a child is going to be damaged by the drugs done -- it was only Robbie that was diagnosed with abstinence syndrome from cocaine and heart defects at birth. My sister's FAS wasn't apparent at birth, it took several years to be sure that her development was in fact delayed, but she has the mentality of a 13-year-old in a 28-year-old woman's body. Robbie, naturally, is worse off than Tina.
Still, while I wish I could do horrible, horrible things to their birth mother, putting her in jail wouldn't have solved anything. Treatment, not jail. But don't minimize the damage shit can do besides "narcotics" -- which, aside from a discontinuation syndrome, are NOT associated with long-term intellectual delays or birth defects like other substances are. (Edit to add: Hence why methadone maintenance is far better for the pregnant woman than actual heroin use, and why women in chronic pain are able to deliver babies who do not suffer from effects of drugs -- a friend of mine had to have a stent put in her kidney during pregnancy and the pain was so awful that they elected to treat it so she could actually eat to give nutrients to the baby. They used methadone, because it has the longest track record of use in pregnant women. They did have her taper off in the weeks before delivery so the baby was only exposed to a minor dose shortly before birth, and experienced no discontinuation syndrome.)
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)I'm not minimizing the effects that a drug may have. I avoided absolutely everything, including Tylenol, during my pregnancies.
But this prosecutor is mis-applying a law that specifically targets only narcotics, not meth. He could mis-apply the same law to anything else he wants, if this is allowed to go through.
rbrnmw
(7,160 posts)My son was born 6 weeks early and 2 days before I had taken Nyquil. I was admitted to the hospital after my water broke. After I woke up from an emergency c-section I was asked if I had used PCP, I told them I hadn't ever used PCP. The hospital didn't believe that so I swore that the only thing I had taken was Nyquil. I finally asked them if they would please find out if something I ate or drank could have caused a false-positive, sure enough Nyquil caused it. I was in Louisiana and was facing the loss of my baby to CPS. I can't imagine being arrested on top of CPS taking my child.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)I'm glad it worked out okay.
rbrnmw
(7,160 posts)Not to mention I was dealing with my son in NICU because his lungs were not developed enough. I wanted to breastfeed and they wouldn't allow me to until he was 7 days old I had to pump my breasts. I felt cheated because it took him a while to learn to latch.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)I am so sorry that happened to you.
Response to pnwmom (Reply #35)
rbrnmw This message was self-deleted by its author.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)joeglow3
(6,228 posts)
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Fetal alcohol syndrome is a condition in a child that results from alcohol exposure during the mother's pregnancy. Fetal alcohol syndrome causes brain damage and growth problems. The problems caused by fetal alcohol syndrome vary from child to child, but defects caused by fetal alcohol syndrome are irreversible.
There is no amount of alcohol that's known to be safe to consume during pregnancy. If you drink during pregnancy, you place your baby at risk of fetal alcohol syndrome.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/fetal-alcohol-syndrome/basics/definition/con-20021015
Alcohol can harm your baby at any stage during a pregnancy. That includes the earliest stages before you even know you are pregnant. Drinking alcohol can cause a group of conditions called fetal alcohol spectrum disorders (FASDs).Effects can include physical and behavioral problems such as trouble with
Learning and remembering
Understanding and following directions
Controlling emotions
Communicating and socializing
Daily life skills, such as feeding and bathing
Fetal alcohol syndrome is the most serious type of FASD. People with fetal alcohol syndrome have facial abnormalities, including wide-set and narrow eyes, growth problems and nervous system abnormalities.
FASDs last a lifetime. There is no cure for FASDs. Treatments can help. These include medicines to help with some symptoms and behavior therapy. No one treatment is right for every child.
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/fetalalcoholspectrumdisorders.html
A lot of people drink during pregnancy. Should they be imprisoned for it?
I have seen a couple of kids who have suffered from the behavior of the mother during pregnancy. But I think that anti-abortion activists should encourage future mothers to be more responsible and should provide services for them, whether their drug of excess is alcohol or meth, not punish the mothers for using while carrying.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)for drinking. We should be providing supportive services.
GoneOffShore
(17,339 posts)A French gynecologist said:
"Madam would be unwise to to consume several litres of wine a day, but a glass at luncheon and a glass at dinner will harm neither you nor your child."
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)But wine does not have the alcohol content that some other drinks do. I think that wine drunk with meals is metabolized differently than wine drunk without food. But I don't know how much wine a person could drink without harming their baby. I did not drink during my pregnancies or shortly before or after.
GoneOffShore
(17,339 posts)And was short and weighed less than 100lbs/7.15stone/45kg her doctor recommended a bottle of Guinness a day.
There is the this terrible tendency in this country to go overboard about any diet/food/drink recommendations or suggestions. And a definite "goats on fire" attitude towards alcohol and drugs.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Also there is a non-alcoholic beer that I drank when I was pregnant.
It's best not to take chances when you are pregnant. Everything you eat or drink or smoke goes to your baby. Your blood nourishes your baby. Alcohol goes into your bloodstream.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)Of course blowing smoke in the face of a baby is bad. Anyone doing that should be referred to Child Protective Services. Once a child is born, it is important that the government do what it can to insure a decent childhood.
And of course, I wouldn't recommend smoking anything during pregnancy. So, yeah it is "bad".
Criminalizing which one? If a woman is reported for raising a child in a drug environment, the state can take the child out of that environment. They don't arrest the woman for "assault".
Smoking anything one week before delivery isn't grounds to arrest someone for "assault". There was no person assaulted. There more than likely was no harm done to the fetus.
Yes criminalizing it is part of the right's war on women. Women have to have a drug test at delivery--that's a basic violation of rights. If the drug test comes back positive they are arrested on a specious claim of "assault" where there is ZERO proof any harm was done to the fetus.
That is a partial, honest answer.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)joeglow3
(6,228 posts)
Warpy
(111,237 posts)Do you think she's going to go to a doctor if she's been using from now on? HELL NO. She's going to give birth by herself or with some hamfisted friend in an alley or some seedy motel. If the kid survives withdrawal, oh goody. If not, they'll find it emptied out of a dumpster in the landfill.
This is such a STUPID LAW and it's going to cause DEATHS.
Hell, I know a few addicts who were told to keep using because they'd threaten the pregnancy if they tried to stop.
PUNITIVE IDIOTS WHO HATE WOMEN came up with this STUPID LAW.
Is a MAN every going to be punished for producing defective sperm due to drug use?
HELL NO!!! This is the war on WOMEN.
librechik
(30,674 posts)Since almost all abortions are done on zygotes not fetuses, this is unscientific. Since almost zero women who desire abortion are drug users, let's blur the lines for the idiots out there who want things to be all or nothing.
I'm against the war on women, but I don't think it's an issue that should be diluted by giving the opposition ammunition against indisputably wrong- doing women.
Can we just keep our discussion within the lines of normal women doing normal healthcare things? And not bring in side issues like drug use among women? This is clearly off the subject and unfair. Yet idiots will fasten on to it as more fodder for their all or nothing beliefs.
Warpy
(111,237 posts)This is a WAR on WOMEN. The fetus is incidental and you know it. Nobody's going to imprison an infant for testing positive to drugs, they're going to imprison the WOMAN.
Women will NOT seek medical care for their pregnancies.
Women will DIE from this law.
How is this not part of the WAR ON WOMEN?
Good god.
Oh, and by the way, abortions are mostly done on implanted embryos, a few on fetuses. Read up on what you're talking about. A zygote is a single cell, incapable of implanting in a uterus.
librechik
(30,674 posts)however, it doesn't help our side to focus on this precise example. It is too atomized in it's parts. It brings in side issues which seem to support the other side in their quest to demean women.
and while your nomenclature is more accurate re zygote, the point is still made--few abortions on fetuses, most on undifferentiated cell clumps.
All I'm saying is this is a sneaky and twisted part of the war on women which we will fail to defend rhetorically because it inspires hatred of women for what most women don't do, i.e., drugs.
As soon as we spiral down into micro-defining terms, it's no longer an effective discussion.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)That is what people are objecting to, your definition.
librechik
(30,674 posts) BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)librechik
(30,674 posts)is that your retort?
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)
Shrike47
(6,913 posts)pnwmom
(108,973 posts)
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)At least the Indian Constitution has clear protections for women.....
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)what "clear protections" the Indian Constitution has.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)most likely reason my daughter is disabled. Iowa ground water is not drinkable in many areas and she was a victim of this kind of water pollution. Are they going to arrest them?
BTW I do not have proof of this connection but I once asked the EPA about it and their answer was that it was not one chemical but a chemical soup that runs off fields into the wells.
Duppers
(28,117 posts)Wish there were a way to prove this. It should be stopped!
Erin Brockovich, Iowa needs you.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)If you live in a town, your town water company may be testing it. You need to check. Get a chemical analysis or ask for a chemical analysis of the water you drink.
Do you have a well? Have you moved? You should check out the facts on this. If the water really is bad, you should bring it to the attention of other people and find a way to clean it up, maybe contact the EPA.
Sometimes, if there is an epidemic of some condition that could be caused by water, the US Geological Survey might have information. Check on this.
In Iowa, you could have pesticide use way back that had lead in it or you could have natural deposits in the ground of something that could cause a problem. It isn't necessarily someone's or some company's fault, but it might be. On the other hand the problem may not be due to something in your water. But it would help yourself to gain clarity and maybe help others to avoid the problem if you try to find out whether it was your water.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)into the well. We did have it tested and it showed too many nitrates but at the time they were not testing for other chemicals. The EPA people I talked with said that nitrates alone would not have caused the fetal damage but the mixture of it and the other chemicals certainly could have.
I suspect any liability has long run out as that was over 50 years ago.
The point I am making regarding this OP is that the pregnant mother is not always the cause of the child's problems.
Thank you for your concern.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)cause for developmental problems.
But -- a lot of people forget how damaging alcohol can be. It isn't viewed as a harmful chemical substance, but it can be when ingested.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)who missed the bullet by the grace of God because their mother did not stop using during her pregnancies. I do not know about the child she gave away or the little one they just took away from her. We have finally gotten total custody of our two babies. Some hyperactivity on our little boy but not enough to worry about yet. No one knows how long she (birth mother) is going to go on having babies and losing them.
Duppers
(28,117 posts)Last edited Fri Jul 11, 2014, 03:15 PM - Edit history (2)
Was in my hands. My responsibility. That why I immediately gave up smoking and alcohol.
All one has to do is to visit - or better, volunteer - at a NICU to be convinced of the horrible damage alcohol and drugs cause to infants.
Pregnant women have a far greater responsibility than men in this case.
If this dumbass law prevent one infant from the horrendous suffering, then it's worth it. Don't bash me until you've seen this for yourself! And, btw, in all others cases regarding my gender, I'm an in-your-face Libber.
On edit: Folks here have changed my mind! If you happened to agree with the above that I posted, please read on and carefully consider what others are posting.... because THEY ARE RIGHT!! This is a PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)from giving birth in hospitals. That will result in a great deal of additional risk to these babies.
Also, drug tests can yield false positives. In the general population, there are going to be more false positives than actual positives.
Do you want to be arrested for assault and thrown into jail because of a false positive when you give birth?
Duppers
(28,117 posts)
littlemissmartypants
(22,631 posts)pnwmom
(108,973 posts)a few days before birth?
Those drugs can produce the same metabolites as meth. If all women are drug-tested at birth, more of them will have false positive tests for illegal drugs than real positive tests.
And women with real drug problems will decide to give birth at home, without a doctor-cop in attendance.
P.S.
Having read your other post, I'm not sure what point you were making here. Sorry if I misunderstood.
littlemissmartypants
(22,631 posts)By sending birthing into the underground, which is where they want us, suppressed and subjugated, mothers and babies WILL DIE.
I thought I was living in a civilized nation.
This makes me wonder.
Love, Peace and Shelter.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)
littlemissmartypants
(22,631 posts)Tomorrow toast. It doesn't matter. This is another can'o worms and not the funny kind.
I AM SICK OF IT!
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)littlemissmartypants
(22,631 posts)Drug testing is not absolutely accurate.
I'm sick of F N idiots trying to practice medicine without a license.
d_r
(6,907 posts)I would agree that this is part of a war on women, but it is also a part of a war on the poor.
They aren't going to test every mother.
There is no provision for testing mothers.
There will be fewer false positives than you think, because they are going to do this profiling women.
Middle class and rich women won't be tested.
There is a huge drug problem in poor rural white folks in east Tennessee. This is who they wil be testing. And poor black women in Memphis and Nashville.
That link has a video with the Sheriff who arrested her, its clear as a bell.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)The drug was written to address narcotic use and addiction. Meth isn't a narcotic, so I don't understand how they can apply this law to this woman's situation -- or any of the meth users in rural Tennessee.
but that's exactly what they are doing. Watch that news report on the link.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)I gave up cigarettes, coffee, fast food, processed foods, all OTC drugs (never really drank alcohol, so I can't state I gave it up)exercised and ate extremely healthy while pregnant ... with that said ....
The ignorance associated with criminalizing addiction, outlawing certain acts for women (think alcohol or cigarettes, ) ... is the height of ignorance.
A women does NOT lose her autonomy the moment she becomes pregnant ... she maintains all the rights and freedoms that any other human being has (including the right to make horrifically bad choices).
Had this mother been caught with the possession of an illegal substance she would have been charged as any other citizen ... this is not the case.
This is a public health emergency ... treating women as a sub class of citizen that can have their rights taken away at any moment, does nothing except criminalize addiction, ignorance and stupidity for ONE "class" of citizen (women).
redqueen
(115,103 posts)What I really wish is that it didn't have to be spelled out here to begin with. 
IronLionZion
(45,413 posts)That's the discussion. Kudos to those with the patience to do it. 
People have different perspectives on the same issue. I initially thought of the poor babies who had no choice in the drug use. I heard lots of horrible stories from a pediatrician I know. Those 2 posts got me thinking about the issue from a very different perspective.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)But this board even has flat-out anti-choice members posting here, so there you go.
bluesbassman
(19,369 posts)This is a complex and challenging issue. You may see it as a cut and dry attack on women and their reproductive rights (which I agree with in principle), but that does not mean that there are not other health and safety issues involved and that other DU members who do not share your exact view does not mean they are anti-choice. This thread has been very civil and informative, with a lot of great perspectives expressed. You may not have meant any specific posters in this thread when you made your 'But this board even has flat-out anti-choice members posting here' comment, but it comes off that way and implies that anyone who doesn't see this issue through the same filter you do should either keep quiet or not even be on this board.
You are of course free to post what you consider appropriate, I personally think in this case you are wrong about this thread.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)And your framing my comment that way is fucking offensive.
The FACT is other people have been MUCH more strident than I have in this thread so why aren't you framing THEIR posts as attacks on DUers who don't agree with them?
Don't bother answering. I know why.
bluesbassman
(19,369 posts)You can get as offended as you want, but everyone else is debating this issue while you chose to inject your myopic opinion about the DU membership. The only person attacking here is you.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)I doubt there are many but there is at least one who is fucking proud of it so you need to calm down and think about why you're singling me out and attacking me for SHIT I DIDNT EVEN SAY.
bluesbassman
(19,369 posts)In your first post in this subthread you indicated that you felt that pointing out that the law was an attack on women's autonomy should not have to be spelled out here at DU. It was then pointed out to you that DU is in fact a discussion board and that people were doing precisely that: Discussing this issue. You then took the opportunity to cast aspersions on un-named DU members. I called you on it. You don't agree. But OK, I'll calm down.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Perfect.
bluesbassman
(19,369 posts)At least that's what I've seen posted here on DU. I really can't say that I've ever been "hysterical", but I'll take your word on it and your kindly advice to calm down.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)I made a comment about the fact that there are anti choice people here and you saw an opportunity to reframe what I said as an "attack on DUers".
You adding that word to your efforts was a nice touch. Well done.
bluesbassman
(19,369 posts)And let's just assume for a second that I had urged you to "calm down" in the middle of a discussion where I disagreed with the comments you were directing at me. Do you seriously expect me to believe that you would not have taken that as my inferring that you were being "hysterical"? Perhaps not, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that one and just take your advice to calm down.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)You've made yourself perfectly clear. Your choice of which comment on this thread you thought was most worthy of rebuke and the words you chose to use leave no doubt.
Thanks for making your priorities and opinions so clear. Have an absolutely fantastic weekend.
bluesbassman
(19,369 posts)Hope you do too!
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)hidden). And anti-choice positions are not explicitly prohibited in the rules, whereas opposition to marriage equality is.
I'm not saying there are necessarily any anti-choicers on this thread, but I agree with rq's general point about DU.
get the red out
(13,461 posts)Perfect response.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)I just woke up.
How does this law work? Is there like a blanket warrant to drug test every women who goes to the hospital to give birth?
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)the law is supposed to apply to narcotic use.
Meth isn't a narcotic.
So how could they arrest her?
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)doctor/patient confidentiality?
What about prescription narcotics - doctors do prescribe those during pregnancy?
I'd hate to be able to get pregnant in this day and age. Of course, I never had the desire in any day and age.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)when they take a medical history. That would really give them helpful information.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)Duppers
(28,117 posts)I am persuadable. 
"This is a public health emergency.."
WELL SAID! My apology for losing perspective for a moment.
btw, I also gave up 'coffee, fast food, processed foods, all OTC drugs, exercised, and ate extremely healthy.' On my first day of giving up smoking, I walked almost 6 miles - yes, I was that jittery. I followed through with 2 miles a day after that. Popcorn, carrots, and chewing gum really helped too. Had a great delivery of a 10lb,2oz boy. I owe the fact that I never smoked again to that kid. 
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)... want to protect "the babies" ... we all want those coming in to the world to begin with the very best chance and the very best health ... laws like this don't really do this, they punish women but do nothing to help "the babies".
we need better public health and outreach for pregnant women ...we need accessible and affordable addiction treatment (without legal consequences for seeking the treatment) ... we need so much, but we don't need to treat women (pregnant women) as unequal citizens under the law
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)kcr
(15,315 posts)Don't assume people who don't agree with you are ignorant, in-your-face-Libber!11!1!
Duppers
(28,117 posts)My fervor is derived simply from my desire to prevent harm, often lifetime harm, to innocent babies. Nothing more.
If you read my reply to pwnmom, you've known that I backed off my post.
Have a nice day.
kcr
(15,315 posts)I'm glad you backed off, though. I didn't see your brief response to pwnm becaause I responded directly to your post after I read it. There is an edit function.
Warpy
(111,237 posts)there are NO long term effects as they grow up that aren't attributable to POVERTY.
These punitive jackasses who are escalating the WAR ON WOMEN have never bothered to read any of those studies, and they are numerous. If they had, maybe they'd RAISE WAGES instead of jailing mothers for testing positive to drugs at birth.
This is a STUPID LAW that will do NOTHING for children.
Duppers
(28,117 posts)I included an edit to my original post in this thread.
Some chemical exposure does lead to long-term problems and birth defects but not illegal drugs. One LEGAL one that can and does - fetal alcohol syndrome, which 'oddly', does not come under this law when used while pregnant.
Warpy
(111,237 posts)That's one of those multiple risk factor things they haven't nailed down yet. There is a limit out there below which no child with FAS has been born but it's over 90 in here and I can't be arsed to look for it right now. A glass of wine now and then is not going to harm a fetus.
However, you're correct, it's the one drug that can have lifetime effects stemming from fetal exposure.
This law was obviously written by stupid men who think they know it all. There's a lot of that in all state legislatures, especially in Dixie.
Lancero
(3,003 posts)Using these drugs is already illegal, so why not charge them under those laws instead of making up a new one?
bluedigger
(17,086 posts)It's always about the money.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)They are "protecting the unborn child." By threatening the mother with up to 15 years in prison.
This, of course, also has race and class implications.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)...I'm no scientist 
but even I know that's not a good thing to do...right?
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)That's what the article says.
What if she had drunk alcohol? Should she be arrested and face 15 years in prison for that?
What if she binged on donuts? Should she be arrested and face 15 years in prison for that?
This law attempts to criminalize pregnant women for the choices they make. In the name of the fetus. It's an extension of anti-abortion politics.
And as one pregnancy rights advocated pointed out to me, it's not like the women in question got pregnant and then said "Oh, I want to do some drugs now." It's much more likely that they are drug-using women who happened to get pregnant.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)I have an idea, let's take a one week old child and give it the same amount of meth introvenously that the fetus did, and see if that "causes no harm"..
There are a million ways this law is wrong, but don't fucking tell me smoking meth doesn't harm an almost fully grown fetus...
brett_jv
(1,245 posts)To a nearly-born fetus? I'd say that the fetus had a very crappy 24 hours or so, and after that, it was perfectly fine and in no way permanently harmed.
Now, if she was using meth throughout ... then that baby is almost certainly royally screwed. Of course I dunno offhand if meth gets through the placental barrier. I did read somewhere that THC is too large of a molecule to pass through, dunno about meth.
We do know for a fact however that alcohol and nicotine will harm a fetus, esp. alcohol in large/consistent quantities ... to the point where it even causes actual physical defects. Yet, for some reason, there's no law about taking in those substances.
Hell, even the purported target (opioids) are not known to cause physical/permanent defects, they are only known to cause FAS (withdrawals that last a few days after birth). Obviously an unpleasant way to come into the world, but there's no evidence (I've heard of) of actual permanent harm, UNLIKE with nicotine and alcohol.
This is just more WoW crap.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)You know that is largely a myth, don't you?
http://articles.philly.com/2013-07-22/news/40709969_1_hallam-hurt-so-called-crack-babies-funded-study
"'Crack Baby' Study Ends With Unexpected But Clear Result"
<snip>
The researchers consistently found no significant differences between the cocaine-exposed children and the controls. At age 4, for instance, the average IQ of the cocaine-exposed children was 79.0 and the average IQ for the nonexposed children was 81.9. Both numbers are well below the average of 90 to 109 for U.S. children in the same age group. When it came to school readiness at age 6, about 25 percent of children in each group scored in the abnormal range on tests for math and letter and word recognition.
"We went looking for the effects of cocaine," Hurt said. But after a time "we began to ask, 'Was there something else going on?' "
While the cocaine-exposed children and a group of nonexposed controls performed about the same on tests, both groups lagged on developmental and intellectual measures compared to the norm. Hurt and her team began to think the "something else" was poverty.
As the children grew, the researchers did many evaluations to tease out environmental factors that could be affecting their development. On the upside, they found that children being raised in a nurturing home - measured by such factors as caregiver warmth and affection and language stimulation - were doing better than kids in a less nurturing home. On the downside, they found that 81 percent of the children had seen someone arrested; 74 percent had heard gunshots; 35 percent had seen someone get shot; and 19 percent had seen a dead body outside - and the kids were only 7 years old at the time. Those children who reported a high exposure to violence were likelier to show signs of depression and anxiety and to have lower self-esteem.
<snip>
Don't let actual science get in the way of your beliefs.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)Got it.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Later studies found that the supposed deficits suffered by "crack babies" were actually caused in large part by poverty.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)Because my family member looked into this when they were in the process of adopting a baby. There really was very little research about damage with meth or cocaine.
Much more with cigarette smoking and alcohol -- neither of which will get a mother arrested.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)The limited research that has been done shows it to be worse than using cocaine.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)truebrit71
(20,805 posts)But sure, let's go with you on this and say that smoking meth whilst pregnant it's perfectly fine.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)it causes damage.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)Got it.
Meth is a far more toxic drug than cocaine, which is known to cause fetal damage, but there's no "good research" so we'll go with "it's fine until it isn't", yes?
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)cause more damage than cocaine.
The wave of crack babies turned out to be a myth.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_cocaine_exposure
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)Fuck common sense.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)use anything they don't have to. And I think they should have access to good food and health care. But the same people who want to send them to jail for drugs are usually the ones who oppose the safety net, even for pregnant women.
On the other hand, laws that are targeted specifically to narcotics shouldn't be applied to meth, which is a different drug. And this particular law, even when directed at narcotics users, has unintended bad effects which are worse than the problem they're supposed to solve.
From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_cocaine_exposure
Prenatal cocaine exposure (PCE) occurs when a pregnant woman uses cocaine and thereby exposes her fetus to the drug. "Crack baby" was a term coined to describe children who were exposed to crack (cocaine in smokable form) as fetuses; the concept of the crack baby emerged in the US during the 1980s and 1990s in the midst of a crack epidemic.[1] Early studies reported that people who had been exposed to crack in utero would be severely emotionally, mentally, and physically disabled; this belief became common in the scientific and lay communities.[1] Fears were widespread that a generation of crack babies were going to put severe strain on society and social services as they grew up. Later studies failed to substantiate the findings of earlier ones that PCE has severe disabling consequences; these earlier studies had been methodologically flawed (e.g. with small sample sizes and confounding factors). Scientists have come to understand that the findings of the early studies were vastly overstated and that most people who were exposed to cocaine in utero do not have disabilities.[1]
No specific disorders or conditions have been found to result for people whose mothers used cocaine while pregnant.[2] Studies focusing on children of six years and younger have not shown any direct, long-term effects of PCE on language, growth, or development as measured by test scores.[3] PCE also appears to have little effect on infant growth.[4] However, PCE is associated with premature birth, birth defects, attention deficit disorder, and other conditions. The effects of cocaine on a fetus are thought to be similar to those of tobacco and less severe than those of alcohol.[5] No scientific evidence has shown a difference in harm to a fetus of crack and powder cocaine.[6]
PCE is very difficult to study because it very rarely occurs in isolation: usually it coexists with a variety of other factors, which may confound a study's results.[3] For example, pregnant mothers who use cocaine often use other drugs in addition, or they may be malnourished and lacking in medical care. Children in households where cocaine is abused are at risk of violence and neglect, and those in foster care may experience problems due to unstable family situations. Thus researchers have had difficulty in determining which effects result from PCE and which result from other factors in the children's histories.
riqster
(13,986 posts)pnwmom
(108,973 posts)there is damage, especially when smoked late in pregnancy.
One of my family members adopted a baby, so they read research about drugs beforehand. There is actually much more out there about the damage cigarette smoking and alcohol abuse can do, but no one's arresting pregnant women for that.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)
House
(14 posts)It doesn't sound like a "War on women" to me.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)From the article.
House
(14 posts)There's reasons why women aren't allowed to smoke or drink alcohol while pregnant as it can permanently harm the fetus. However, the state should wait for evidence that the baby was harmed before charging the mother for a crime.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Unless you can show me a statute somewhere I don't know about.
House
(14 posts)
I should clarify that doctors don't recommend it and for very good reasons.
kcr
(15,315 posts)Which isn't true. It's strongly advised that they shouldn't do it, but women don't lose their right to bodily autonomy when they get pregnant.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)When I was pg 30 years and went out occasionally for breakfast, I had "health police" come up to me and tell me what I was drinking and EATING was bad for my unborn baby. I should be drinking MILK (yuck) instead and eating cereal and fruit. While I did have coffee (DRUG caffeine) every day, I certainly did not eat bacon and eggs all the time. Yes, every once in a while I had a glass of wine too. Jail time? Besides, it was NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS. Drugs (soda, coffee, or tea?), smoking, alcohol today, what else tomorrow? French Fries?
Remember, when they tried to pass a bill requiring all miscarriges to be investigated? Why? To make sure the woman did not do something herself to CAUSE the miscarriage.
Read between the lines, and look at the bigger picture with all this.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)Is the medical staff now an adjunct of the police department?
Should we have a law that discourages women from truthfully speaking to their doctors?
Should we have a law that encourages women to give birth at home, unattended, rather than dealing with the doctor-police? Or to get an abortion instead of having a baby who was exposed to some substance?
Sometimes alcohol damage doesn't show up for years. What statute of limitations do you propose on harm to a fetus? If a child has ADD at age 6 and the other drank once a week during her pregnancy, should she be prosecuted?
This is the rabbit hole this kind of law takes us all down.
And, during her pregnancy care, did the Doc determine if drug use was a pre-existing condition and treat accordingly?
What a bunch of bullshit
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)Who told the cops she admitted to smoking meth? The doctor? His staff?
Did they have a search warrant and probable cause with respect to the doctor? Are they violating HIPAA laws?
This sounds like a real mess.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)pnwmom
(108,973 posts)Have you ever heard of a woman being penalized for doing either one?
But doctors strongly RECOMMEND that women do neither one.
NM_Birder
(1,591 posts)meth is ok when pregnant, when she has toddlers and well into thier teen years. All laws should be able to be ignored unless something happens, I mean after all, things are really only wrong if you get caught or someone gets hurt right ?
So long as there is no evidence, it's all good.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)This is a brand new law. It should not be ignored. It should be repealed. It's part of the anti-abortion/fetal rights agenda. You think those Republican lawmakers give a shit about this woman or her kids? Not after they're born, anyway.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Pregnancy and Drug Use: The Facts
By combining drug war propaganda with claims of fetal rights, new and significant violations of civil liberties and human rights are occurring. In the last twenty years, hundreds of pregnant women and new mothers have been arrested, based on the argument that a pregnant woman’s drug use is a form of abuse or neglect. In 1997, the South Carolina Supreme Court held that a pregnant woman who used cocaine and who gave birth to a healthy baby could be convicted of child abuse. More recently, a pregnant woman who used cocaine and suffered a stillbirth that was caused by an infection-- has been convicted of homicide by child abuse in South Carolina. More than eighteen states now address the issue of pregnant women’s drug use in their civil child neglect laws, and a growing number of these states make it possible to remove a child based on nothing more than a single positive drug test. Like other applications of the war on drugs, the punishment of pregnant women targets vulnerable, low-income women of color—those with the least access to health care or legal defense.
These cases represent a significant expansion of the war on drugs. Pregnant women who are addicts can go to jail, despite Supreme Court rulings that treat addiction as a disease --and punishment for it as a violation of the Constitution's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Similarly, despite the fact that people who are treated for drug related health problems are supposed to have extra protections under the federal drug treatment confidentiality statute, S.C., by reinterpreting drug use as child abuse, creates a devastating exception to the statute’s privacy protections.
NAPW seeks to ensure that addiction and other health and welfare problems women face during pregnancy are addressed as health issues, not as crimes; that families are not needlessly separated, based on medical misinformation; and that pregnant and parenting women have access to a full range of reproductive health services, as well as non-punitive drug treatment services.
NAPW believes that without a comprehensive strategy to undo decades of misinformation and political posturing about pregnancy and drug use, an ever-widening circle of women will be caught in increasingly punitive, intrusive, and coercive government controls that hurt rather than help women and their families. Similarly, drug policy reform efforts to de-stigmatize drug users and to shift policies from punishment to treatment will fail if the myth of crack babies and crack mothers destroying a generation of children is left unchallenged. And, while failure to address the intersection of these issues could lead to further erosion of both drug policy reform efforts and reproductive rights, the ability to take on these issues in a coherent manner provides a unique opportunity to enlist the support of new organizations and communities in the struggle for drug policy reform, and a more just society.
In this section you will find statements from leading scientists, medical researchers, medical, public health, and child welfare organizations addressing the issues of pregnancy and drug use. You will also find articles discussing why some women use drugs during pregnancy and how stigma and misinformation not only hurt pregnant women but also their children, families, and communities.
SAMHSA Brochure "Methadone Treatment for Pregnant Women"
January 07, 2014
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) Brochure, Methadone Treatment for Pregnant Women: "If you're pregnant and using drugs such as heroin or abusing opioid prescription pain killers, it's important that you get help for yourself and your unborn baby. Methadone maintenance treatment can help you stop using those drugs. It is safe for the baby, keeps you free of withdrawal, and gives you a chance to take care of yourself."
Experts Urge Media to End Inaccurate Reporting on Prescription Opiate Use by Pregnant Women
March 13, 2013
Response to: "Drug Policies Must Be Rooted in Science"
December 21, 2012
Download file
NAPW Documentation State v. Greywind
April 14, 2012
State v. Greywind, No. CR-92-447 (N.D. Cass County Ct. Apr. 10, 1992).
On February 7, 1992, Martina Greywind, a twenty-eight-year-old homeless Native American woman from Fargo who was approximately twelve weeks pregnant, was arrested. She was charged with reckless endangerment based on the claim that by inhaling the vapors of paint fumes, she was creating a substantial risk of serious bodily injury or death to her unborn child. The complaint alleged:
[The] defendant willfully created a substantial risk of serious bodily injury or death to another, to-wit: . . . MARTINA GREYWIND, while pregnant intentionally inhaled the vapors of a volatile chemical in violation of North Dakota Century Code 12.1-31-06 and thereby willfully created a substantial risk of serious bodily injury or death to her unborn child.
On February 10, 1992, Ms. Greywind, without a lawyer, initially pleaded guilty. She was sentenced to nine months at a state prison farm and ordered to participate in a chemical dependency program. After an attorney took her case, however, Ms. Greywind was allowed to withdraw her plea on February 12, 1992.
During this time, members of the Lambs of Christ were active in Fargo attempting to disrupt the Fargo Women's Health Clinic, the only abortion clinic in North Dakota. The Lambs of Christ is a loosely organized group of Roman Catholics who "focus on the rescue of unborn children." They had been in North Dakota since March and members of their group had been repeatedly jailed. News stories about the case reported that members of the group who had been arrested attempted to befriend Ms. Greywind while they were in jail together.
According to court records and the press, Lambs of Christ spokesperson Ronald Maxson posted $100 for a $1000 personal recognizance bond for Ms. Greywind. Nine hours after her release on bail, Ms. Greywind was re-arrested because police allegedly caught her sniffing paint again. She pleaded guilty to illegal inhalation of chemical vapors and was transferred to the state mental hospital. The State's Attorney said Ms. Greywind was to spend thirty days in the hospital or jail as her sentence. On February 20, 1992, a lawyer for the Lambs of Christ filed a petition seeking to have the woman's brother, Ken Greywind, appointed her legal guardian, apparently in an effort to prevent Ms. Greywind from having an abortion. According to an affidavit filed by Mr. Greywind, "I believe she is contemplating an abortion in order to have the charge of reckless endangerment dismissed and get out of jail so she can continue to abuse her body." The court denied Mr. Greywind’s petition.
On February 21, 1992 the State and Ms. Greywind entered a stipulation -- an agreement between the parties -- that Ms. Greywind “be released from the Cass County Jail for the following medical and/or psychological appointment: February 22, 1992, at 11:00 A.M.” According to press reports, this release enabled Ms. Greywind to obtain an abortion at the Fargo Women’s Health Clinic. Ms. Greywind obtained the abortion, despite widely-publicized efforts by abortion opponents to persuade her to carry the pregnancy to term including a financial offer conveyed by the Lambs of Christ of at least $10,000. Ms. Greywind expressed a desire to have the abortion, but also her inability to pay the cost of the procedure. North Dakota law prohibited state funding of abortion. According to the press, anonymous donors offered to pay for the $300-400 cost of her abortion. On February 24, 1992, Mr. Maxson of the Lambs of Christ requested that the $100 bail be returned to him. The request was granted.
On March 30, 1992, Ms. Greywind filed a motion to dismiss the charges arguing that “the State in this case [was] seeking to criminalize the pregnancy of a drug-addicted woman by applying a strained and unforeseen construction of the North Dakota reckless endangerment statute," as well as other grounds including the fact that the abortion rendered the case moot. Assistant Cass County Prosecutor Steve Dawson then filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice stating:
On February 10, 1992 [Martina Greywind] was charged with the offense of Reckless Endangerment, a class A misdemeanor. The defendant has recently undergone treatment at the North Dakota State Hospital and is presently in custody at the Cass County Jail on a subsequent and pending charge of Inhalation of Volatile Chemicals in violation of N.D.C.C. Section 12.1-31-06. Defendant has made it known to the State that she has terminated her pregnancy. Consequently, the controversial legal issues presented are no longer ripe for litigation. Further, the likelihood of this extreme factual situation recurring is limited. In the interest of preserving limited prosecutorial and judicial resources, Plaintiff hereby moves to dismiss the Complaint in this action with prejudice.
According to news reports, the prosecutor in the case stated that since Ms. Greywind had the abortion, it was “no longer worth the time or expense to prosecute her.” On April 10, 1992, the child endangerment charge was dismissed.
Prenatal Exposure to Illegal Drugs and Alcohol: Media Hype and Enduring Myths Are Not Supported By Science
March 24, 2010
Download a pdf of this fact sheet here
Based on the extraordinary misinformation that appeared frequently in the popular press, many people believe that a pregnant woman who uses any amount of an illegal drug or alcohol will inevitably harm or even kill her fetus. But media hype is not the same as science. As explained by Dr. Deborah Frank in this on-line video, Prenatal Drug Exposure: Award-Winning Pediatrician Discusses What The Science Tells Us, popular news reports have misrepresented the scientific facts about prenatal exposure to drugs.
Scientists Debunk Assumptions about Prenatal Crack Exposure
August 13, 2009
The New York Times reported this year on the latest research on children exposed prenatally to crack cocaine. Read The Epidemic That Wasn't to learn about their studies showing that crack exposure does not have the devastating effects on development once assumed.
Prenatal Drug Exposure: Award-Winning Pediatrician Discusses What The Science Tells Us
August 12, 2009
This is a video based on a lecture that Dr. Deborah A. Frank, Pediatrician gave on February 11th 2009 at a continuing education program entitled Drugs, Pregnancy and Parenting: What the Experts in Medicine, Social Work and Law Have to Say.
NAPW ANALYSIS OF TENNESSEE BILLS SB1065 AND HB0890
March 23, 2009
At the request of activists in Tennessee, NAPW analyzed two 2009 bills in Tennessee concerning pregnant women. Pursuant to Tennessee bills SB1065 and HB0890, pregnant women who meet certain criteria would be tested for alcohol and drugs in order to encourage them to seek immediate treatment for an alcohol-related or drug- related problem. Our analysis of the bills makes clear that this legislation lacked foundation in evidence based research and would undermine, rather than promote maternal, fetal, and child health. It is our understanding that the bill was withdrawn in March of 2009.
Download PDF file
Urine Toxicology Screening
March 18, 2009
DHHS Substance Abuse Mental Health Administration recommends the adoption of the standards used for urine drug testing in the workplace as proscribed by the federal workplace drug testing guidelines if routine alcohol and drug testing is performed on pregnant women. Those guidelines are available here: Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs.
A sample consent form is also available for download.
One Hit of Meth Enough to Cause 'News Defects'
August 17, 2005
By Barry Lester, Ph.D., Guest Commentary, JoinTogether.org, August 17, 2005
Recently (July 27, 2005), Medical News Today (MNT) carried a story with the alarming title, "Single prenatal dose of meth causes birth defects." Join Together, a prominent website, published a summary of the story with a similar headline and opening with the possibly more inflammatory, "Pregnant women who use methamphetamine even once put their unborn children at risk of birth defects" (July 29, 2005). These headlines misleadingly imply that the research involved women when it actually involved mice, and both the original story and the Join Together summary failed to mention that this animal research may have little if any bearing on the health outcome of humans prenatally exposed to methamphetamines.
Top Medical Doctors, Scientists & Specialists Urge Major Media Outlets Not to Create "Meth Baby" Myth
July 25, 2005
On July 25, 2005 more than 90 leading medical doctors, scientists, psychological researchers and treatment specialists released a public letter calling on the media to stop the use of such terms as "ice babies" and "meth babies." This prestigious group agrees that these terms lack scientific validity and should not be used.
Another "Drug Baby" Media Scare?
March 12, 2005
Recently (July 27, 2005), Medical News Today (MNT) carried a story with the alarming title, "Single prenatal dose of meth causes birth defects." Join Together, a prominent website, published a summary of the story with a similar headline and opening with the possibly more inflammatory, "Pregnant women who use methamphetamine even once put their unborn children at risk of birth defects" (July 29, 2005). These headlines misleadingly imply that the research involved women when it actually involved mice, and both the original story and the Join Together summary failed to mention that this animal research may have little if any bearing on the health outcome of humans prenatally exposed to methamphetamines...
Read More
Do you have questions about your pregnancy and the drugs you are taking?
March 05, 2004
Motherisk is a "source for evidence-based information about the safety or risk of drugs, chemicals and disease during pregnancy and lactation." (NAPW does not, however, warrant or gaurantee the accuracy of information on this site or any other site to which NAPW links that relates to medical information, nor is this site nor any other site that NAPW links to intended to substitute for professional medical advice, to contradict medical advice given or to substitute for medical care of any kind. )
http://motherisk.org/
The Demon Seed that Wasn't: Debunking the "crack baby" myth
March 01, 2004
By: Maia Szalavitz, City Limits MONTHLY, March 2004
When four starving boys aged 19, 14, 10 and 9, were taken from their New Jersey adoptive parents last October, all were severely emaciated. The oldest was so stunted--he weighed 45 pounds and measured four feet tall--that police thought he was a grade-schooler. He had been found by neighbors, rooting through their trash for food at 2:30 a.m. He was so weak, he couldn't even open the Tastykake they hastily offered.
They Called Me Crack Baby, So why am I in college?
March 01, 2004
By: Antwaun Garcia, City Limits MONTHLY, March 2004
I don't know if I was born with drugs in my body or not. But my moms used drugs while she was pregnant with me. So it wasn't long before kids at school were calling me a "crack baby."
Top Medical Doctors and Scientists Urge Major Media Outlets to Stop Perpetuating “Crack Baby” Myth
February 25, 2004
Download file
PRESS RELEASE
Signatories from Leading Hospitals and Research Institutes in US and Canada Agree That Term Lacks Scientific Basis and Is Dangerous to Children
Letter Sent to Washington Post, Arizona Republic, LA Weekly, Charleston Post and Courier, Amarillo Globe-News and Other Media Using These Terms
HIV, demanding truth about approaches that work
May 07, 2002
Because NAPW believes in evidence based medicine and policies based on science not stigma, we joined a letter addressed to Ambassador Randall Tobias, Office of the United States Global AIDS Coordinator, expressing concern about US officials who questioned the efficacy of needle exchange programs and sought to block support for needle exchange in United Nations resolutions and policy documents. As the letter explained:
Pregnant Drug Users: Scapegoats of the Reagan/Bush and Clinton Era Economics
January 13, 2001
By: Sheigla Murphy and Paloma Sales
INTRODUCTION
In this paper we present analyses of two National Institute on Drug Abuse-funded studies entitled, "An Ethnographic Study of Pregnancy and Drug Use" (Rosenbaum and Murphy 1991-94) and "An Ethnography of Victimization, Pregnancy and Drug Use," (Murphy 1995-98). Our goal is to explicate the ways in which pregnant drug users in the San Francisco Bay Area experienced, coped with and protected themselves from increasing stigmatization, abuse and punishment while enduring a period of fiscal retrenchment of government assistance programs.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)NM_Birder
(1,591 posts)pregnant women should all enjoy an 8ball or so, at least until someone proves it's known to be detrimental to the unborn.
Drunk driving doesn't cause accidents, until it does. If get away with it, then there was no need to enforce the law.
I am in love with your logic.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)How many women will have to go through the trauma of prosecution because of false positives on a blood test?
By giving this blood test to the general population, they will find more false positives than true positives-- and all those women would be traumatized.
And how did this woman "admit' to her meth use? Did the doctor Mirandize her before taking her medical history? Shouldn't he have? Is the hospital now an adjunct of the police department?
If women think it is, will they start giving birth at home now, unattended, rather than facing the doctor-police?
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)could you expand on your statement?
Do you feel that there is a sub class of women, those of child bearing age, where separate laws and freedoms should be applied? We could call it the non-autonomous pregnant woman acts ... we could outlaw all substances and activities that could possibly effect a fetus ... or ovum ... these laws could cover females from approximately the age of 11 - 50 (obviously, hysterectomy ooferectomy etc , verified by a physician could rescind the separate laws for some).
i am a former nurse (worked as a nurse in my 20s and early 30s), but now I work in a "high risk" industry where I am exposed to environmental toxins, carcinogens etc all the time ... perhaps laws should prohibit the "women of child-bearing age " subclass from working in fields such as mine, to....?
House
(14 posts)I was only talking about the woman in the article.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)Laws are not instituted and enforced on an individual basis ... your statements apply to all women.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)The law itself affects all women, not just the woman in the article. 
House
(14 posts)Let's not ignore the science behind meth use and fetal development:
"One hit Of Crystal Meth Causes Birth Defects, Affects Fetuses At All Stages Of Development" http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/07/050727063759.htm
"Mom's meth use during pregnancy causes kids' behavioral problems" http://www.cbsnews.com/news/moms-meth-use-during-pregnancy-causes-kids-behavioral-problems/
Yes, the law sucks. But let's not ignore the long term effects of meth use and fetal development.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)Please enlighten me.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)cyberswede
(26,117 posts)Yeah...I can read between THOSE lines. 
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)
alp227
(32,015 posts)
liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)pnwmom
(108,973 posts)The blood test for meth could yield a false positive if a woman took an over the counter cold pill or asthma medication.
http://www.medschat.com/Discuss/What-Medications-Can-Cause-A-False-Positive-For-Meth-228017.htm
If the woman "admitted" to meth use, was she read her rights before being questioned? Or is the medical staff now an adjunct to the police department? Should the medical staff be reading her her rights before taking a medical history?
Will this encourage more women to lie to their doctors? To get abortions if they have drug problems? To give birth at home to avoid dealing with doctors and police?
littlemissmartypants
(22,631 posts)
ismnotwasm
(41,975 posts)Women in my state do lose custody for a positive test, but have the chance to re obtain if able to live a life that won't put a child in danger. They are given help. If pregnant, and trying to kick, and working with healthcare providers-- they do not lose custody. We have neonatal treatment centers as well.
What good does arrest do for anyone? Plus it's dumbass. It's no deterrent for addicts, it will not stop anything and will make the problem worse. A disaster for social workers, law enforcement, not to mention the infant and mother.
Mariana
(14,854 posts)It'll deter them from seeking medical attention during pregnancy and childbirth.
Exactly.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)riqster
(13,986 posts)Response to WinkyDink (Reply #47)
Duppers This message was self-deleted by its author.
Duppers
(28,117 posts)I've was hit with a stupid stick today. You're right, they also want to outlaw abortion.
See: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1077402
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)ACLU-TN Seeks to Challenge New Law
Criminalizing Addicted Mothers
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 10, 2014
CONTACT: Lindsay Kee, ACLU-TN communications director, 615-320-7142; [email protected]
NASHVILLE – A Monroe County mother recently became the first woman to be arrested and charged with simple assault under Tennessee’s new law singling out mothers struggling with addiction for criminal prosecution. The American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee is currently seeking plaintiffs to challenge this law.
This law makes Tennessee the first state to authorize the filing of assault charges against a woman who decides to remain pregnant despite suffering from a substance abuse problem.
ACLU-TN had urged the governor to veto this law because it raises serious constitutional concerns regarding equal treatment under the law and jeopardizes the health and well-being of Tennesseans.
The following can be attributed to Thomas H. Castelli, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee:
“This dangerous law unconstitutionally singles out new mothers struggling with addiction for criminal assault charges. By focusing on punishing women rather than promoting healthy pregnancies, the state is only deterring women struggling with alcohol or drug dependency from seeking the pre-natal care they need. ACLU-TN stands ready to challenge this law and encourages any woman concerned about the impact this law will have on her to contact us.”
Information about the ACLU of Tennessee is available at: www.aclu-tn.org
People concerned about the impact this law will have on them or their families should contact ACLU-TN at www.aclu-tn.org/gethelp.htm.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)What....The.....Fuck?
With all the issues we haven't addressed, people are actively working on shit like this?
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)about the father's drug use and how that effects the fetus? More and more studies show that sperm are affected by drug use and can cause early miscarriages and even birth defects. Don't hear much about that, do we? And certainly we will never see a law charging a man for harm caused at conception by his drug use.
Wait Wut
(8,492 posts)...and trying to defend any woman that uses drugs, alcohol or cigarettes while pregnant...
...let's try working on finding solutions and preventions so this discussion isn't necessary. As a child of two alcoholics that both smoked and drank through the entire pregnancy, I can testify that not all problems are evident at birth.
You can kick and scream about this law or you can fight the reasons behind it. We need to educate women, young and older, about the effects of drugs/alcohol on an unborn child and themselves. We need to fight to make birth control affordable and accessible for all women. We need to ensure that safe and legal pregnancy termination is available to all women.
Building self-esteem, providing outlets and opportunities can be lumped in with all of this.
But, please, don't try to tell anyone that it's not the kid's problem that mom was an addict. Besides the physical/biological problems that can be caused by neonatal addiction, the long term psychological affects of being raised by addicts can be just as devastating. It isn't just the illegal drugs and opiates that can affect a child's life. Patting this woman or any other woman on the head and telling her it wasn't her fault is a damned horrible thing to do to her. Stop coddling these women and give them the courage and support they need to fight. We have enough unwanted and damaged kids in this world. Breaking the damned cycle is the only hope for the daughters of these women.
840high
(17,196 posts)
one_voice
(20,043 posts)pnwmom
(108,973 posts)I completely agree that we should be offering more support to these families, both mothers and fathers, in getting them off drugs -- both during pregnancy and beyond.
But this law is wrong, and it's being misapplied. For one thing, it was written specifically about narcotics. Meth is not a narcotic. Actually, there is more research out there about the harm to fetuses from cigarettes than there is related to meth. Is the law going to be extended to every woman who smokes or drinks alcohol? If the prosecutor can ignore the plain fact that it is directed only at narcotics, where does he stop? What else can he arrest women for?
How did they get this admission from the woman that she had used meth? Was it part of her medical history, taken by a doctor? Did he administer the Miranda? Isn't this going to encourage women who've used drugs to lie to their doctors? To get abortions rather than face the doctor-police? Isn't it going to encourage women to give birth at home without a doctor-cop in attendance?
No one's suggesting that we should pat women on the head and tell them this isn't their fault. That's incredibly patronizing. But many of us are suggesting that this is a stupid, wrong-headed law that will have bad consequences, both for women and their babies.
littlemissmartypants
(22,631 posts)THIS. HAS.GOT.TO.STOP.
VAGINAS ARE COMING.
SEPT. 2014
WASHINGTON, DC
LOVE, PEACE AND SHELTER. LMSP
Mr Dixon
(1,185 posts)How the hell else are they supposed to feed the prison industrial complex?
littlemissmartypants
(22,631 posts)LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)The Monroe County Sheriff's Office said Loyola and her young daughter both tested positive for amphetamine at the University of Tennessee Medical Center. Deputies say Loyola admitted to smoking meth three to four days before giving birth to her child.
http://www.wbir.com/story/news/local/2014/07/09/mallory-loyola-charged-simple-assault-baby-tests-positive-methamphetamine/12432493/
http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/crime/2014/07/10/e-tenn-mother-first-face-charges-new-drug-law/12444921/
Now, I don't know whether that's a false positive test for some other amphetamine. But whoever wrote that piece shouldn't omit this fact.
Warpy
(111,237 posts)After that, the kid will be normal. Any deficits will be attributable to poverty.
Funny how these asshole men never think about raising wages to get women and children out of poverty. Poverty is worse than drugs in its effect on women and children.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Until it affects the bottom line. Then it's everyone for themselves.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)they produce the same metabolites. In fact, decongestants are used to produce meth, which is why we have to sign for them at the drug store now.
If they test the general population, they will get more false positives for meth use than real positives.
And as far as her "admission" is concerned, how did they get it? Did she tell her doctor? Did he read her her Miranda rights? Is the hospital now an adjunct of the police?
Ilsa
(61,692 posts)
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)smoking meth is a good thing.
I think it's a public health question and should be addressed as such. Putting her in prison doesn't solve anything.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)The punitive nature is what makes it a classic, rightist war on women maneuver.
redqueen
(115,103 posts) BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)redqueen
(115,103 posts)etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)Of course I do not think it is a good idea for a pregnant woman to ingest any drugs!
My points are solely related to equal protection under the law ... either women receive equal protection under the law or they don't ... there are no caveats ... such as equal protection except when a woman is pregnant, may become pregnant ..
I despise the disingenuousness and the ignorance, in these discussions, that want to make the debate about whether it is a good idea for a pregnant woman to use drugs, alcohol etc
This is a public health crisis ... one that needs to be resolved in the area of public ... not laws designating women second class citizens that are not in full possession of their rights
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)On the other hand, she shouldn't have been arrested for it.
It's not a narcotic, and that's what the law is aimed at. And meth itself hasn't been proven by research to cause particular damage to the fetus -- especially one that's near birth. When a family member studied this because she wanted to adopt a baby, she found there was actually more proven risk from cigarettes and alcohol -- and no one's arresting those women.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)I agree that there is a contradiction in arresting meth users and not smokers or drinkers for exposing their fetus to said drugs, but I think it's rather ridiculous of you to assume that smoking meth while you're pregnant doesn't harm the fetus.
If you understand what constitutes street meth and how it can destroy the user's body, it is really not surprising at all that it can harm a fetus.
sendero
(28,552 posts).... way to make the problem worse. The country is full of idiots and many of them make it into the legislature.
moriah
(8,311 posts)It's the legal drugs that can cause as much or more damage to a fetus as the illegal ones. Yes, it sucks for a baby to have to detox. But they will suffer no long-term ill affects from detoxing from opiates, whereas they are very likely to suffer severe intellectual disability due to chronic alcohol consumption.
I don't know what long-term studies have been done about methamphetamine use during pregnancy, and I'd be interested to see. No, it can't be GOOD.
Still, locking women up AFTER the damage is done is pointless. If you were going to exceed governmental authority to intervene for the rights of the fetus, it should be done while pregnancy is happening. And locking alcoholic pregnant women up so they have their babies without alcohol is going to do a hell of a lot more damage, like women deciding to get no prenatal care at all and have their children in secret, than it would good.
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)and then sell them to the highest bidder. Mark my words, they will use this law to force mothers to give up custody---and affluent parents will appear as if by magic to rescue the poor little darlings. And money will change hands behind the scenes. And the mother will be told that charges will be dropped if she gives up custody. They will probably start cooking up phony pos drug tests so that parents can get the baby of their pick.
apples and oranges
(1,451 posts)Heidi
(58,237 posts)
Quantess
(27,630 posts)She should have never had that baby. Get an abortion if you can't stop drinking or using drugs.
That is my opinion.
