Prev Next
Featured Quizzes
Politix Daily Headlines
Featured Debates
Issues

See all 19 issues

PREGNANCY & DRUGS

Should Pregnant Women Who Use Drugs Face Child Abuse Charges?

Laws againt maternal drug use vary by state

Next>

by Mary Noble

Senior Editor t +

Image: surebaby

Women who take illegal drugs while pregnant can face jail in some US states, on the grounds that they're harming their unborn child.

But in some cases those charges are "bogus," writes Kristen Gwynne in a controversial at progressive site Alternet.

According to South Carolina law, mothers are only guilty of a crime if the fetus is harmed by the drugs. But in rare cases women are still charged and convicted, as happened to 21-year-old Regina McKnight, who was arrested for homicide when her baby was stillborn after a pregnancy in which McKnight had taken cocaine. The conviction was overturned after four years of her sentence, based on research showing that cocaine wouldn't have significantly harmed the fetus.

In Alabama taking drugs while pregnant constitutes "the crime of chemical endangerment," based on a personhood law that regards the fetus as a child. The Alternet piece suggests that Alabama's law is too sweeping, since not all drugs are equally likely to harm unborn babies.

However, Alternet downplays the fact that common addictive drugs have serious side effects for the fetus. Methamphetamine is linked to low birth weight and developmental difficulties. And if mothers take opiates like heroin and oxycodone, babies will be born with withdrawal symptoms.

Via Alternet.
Like this article? B Vote Up
?

Should pregnant women who use drugs face charges for risking their fetus?

View results

176 Comments (view in Forum)

  • AlexMIA
    !
    @harold_lloyd If you are a drug addict you have no business being pregnant or being a mother. You have a whole trimester to realize that, and do what is necsessary, whether it's getting an abortion or locking yourself up in a rehabilitation fascilty for 9 months. If after that trimester you procede wrecklessly and selfishly, it should be on you!
  • CommonSense
    !
    @ AlexMIA
    I agree with your reasoning as to why doing drugs while pregnant is wrong and should be morally condemned.
    But you forgot to think about the effects of the law. Since abortion is legal (and if it wasn't the same drug dealers who sold them their drugs would offer them abortions) these women will just all get abortions so they don't get charged with child abuse.
  • CommonSense
    !
    Looked at your comments again. "whether that is getting an abortion".
    Even though it does pose a risk, most children born to mothers who take drugs will be healthy. Add to that that having health problems does not always mean they are insurmountable or that one wishes one was dead. It is not preferable for them to get abortions.

  • Load more replies >

  • culinary
    !
    Yes, yes, yes. 100% absolutely. If you take recreational drugs while pregnant, that is ABUSE. I undwrstand that some women have to take certain medications during pregnancy (i had to take three because of complications), but that is different. If it is not ok'd by the obstetrician, then it is not to be taken during pregnancy. And if they do, that is abuse.
  • Raggae
    !
    Totally agree. I, too, had to take meds while pregnant but they were prescribed & only went to my breast milk & I couldn't breast feed due to medical reasons. I know a lady that has done drugs & drank liquor during her pregnancies & caused major damage to all children that she had & no one would help those babies or turn her in until it was to late, damage was done. So yes, all pregnant women should face serious consequences.
  • MadAmerican
    !
    @NormalFlora When they started out they did some good but now have evey judge and lawmaker bullied that the minorities now are getting more than the majorities. They are currently engaged in assisting illegal, lawbreaking, immigrants obtain citizenship, when the majority of all lawabiding Americans want them rounded up and deported. And yes, I could care less about profiling. We are all profiled every day in one sense or the other, Go to any car lot driving a piece of junk wearing ratty cloths and see how many salesmen fight to sell you a car. Ask any policeman or insurance company and they will tell you red cars get more tickets. A woman that wears a sexy outfit to a bar is automatically labeled. So yes, I have an issue with the ACLU.
  • culinary
    !
    I do not agree. This is a conscious decision to take drugs knowing the effect on your child. Purposeful child abuse. Jail time just like if they beat their child.
  • culinary
    !
    @thatgirl Oh yes. I know a lot about addiction. My own brother is one of the biggest drug addicts I have ever seen. I have seen baby after baby being born with withdrawals, born just TINY, because the mother was doing heroin, cocaine, pills, whatever. They really don't care. To add to my other statement, I think they should be sterilized so they can't have any more children. I have no patience for women who would willfully harm their unborn child, possibly kill them, just for a hit. Absolutely none.
  • Arumizy
    !
    I both agree and disagree with your statement here. Consider it a gray area with both legal and moral obligations. A person who violates the laws and abuses an illegal drug should indeed face jail time. While at the same time that results most often then not them returning to their habits and eventually ending right back up in jail. I think their jail time should be focused on addiction abatement, counseling and paying back their debt to society for violating the law. Granted it is a very fine line between punishment and helping someone and we need to tread closer to it.

  • Load more replies >

  • Dan_Tien
    !
    Will pregnant women who use drugs be charged with child abuse only if they give birth? Will they get a pass if they have an abortion? Will they be charged if they didn't know they were pregnant when they used drugs? Will drug dealers who sell to pregnant women be charged as accessories to child abuse? Will charges be dropped if pregnant women say they didn't know the drugs would hurt the fetus? Will drug companies be charged for child abuse if they say that they didn't know the drugs that they were selling to pregnant women would hurt their fetuses?
  • harold_lloyd
    !
    And what about pregnant women who drink?

    I can see a future when the day a woman is found to be gravid, she is arrested and incarcerated until delivery. Then both she and the newborn are promptly forgotten.
  • Mia
    !
    Yes. It could be a chance for them to accept help. A lot of times rehab is offered as an alternative to jail. Some choose this and can go on and live productve lives. Raising and nurturing their own children. When mothers abuse drugs, their unborn children and any children they currently have suffer. Society as a whole suffers when children are not parented.
  • CommonSense
    !
    So if the pregnant woman visits a person who has a certain type of license granted under the approval of state laws and has the fetus killed should she then be charged with murdered?
  • Thunderchicken
    !
    @CommonSense

    Depending on the age and viability of the fetus, I'd say yes. I know that partial birth abortion is practiced and I completely disagree with that.
  • CommonSense
    !
    @Thunderchicken
    Then shouldn't we only apply the drug endangerment laws once she is at viability.
    Before that she has the legal right to kill the fetus so it doesn't make sense to have a law against drug endangerment at that point. Allowing her to kill but not to risk the fetus' health by taking drugs doesn't make any sense and would just mean she'd get an abortion to avoid prosecution.
  • Thunderchicken
    !
    @CommonSense

    At what point in a pregnancy is an assailant charged with the harm of a child? I think it varies from state to state. My point is that if an assailant can be charged, so should the mother. When (if) that happens would be up to the laws in whatever jurisdiction.
  • CommonSense
    !
    @Thunderchicken
    So if they charge the assailant for it before viability then you don't care about the larger number of abortions that would result from this law?

  • Load more replies >

  • jamie91
    !
    I voted no, they should receive treatment, but real my answer is no, mind your business. Her body. What she does to it is her business. Crap mom, yep. Her being able to raise the kid is a whole other issue.
  • callmecrazy
    !
    That crap might work for abortion, but if the mother planned to carry the child to term then the "her body" bit no longer applies. It isnt "her body" that is a living member of our species, that's what we call a human being.

    If I caused your baby to be stillborn or have a birth defect you *and the law* would hold me accountable...so if a piece of trash intentionally puts the life lf their child at risk they should also be held accountable.
  • jamie91
    !
    @callmecrazy until the kid is out it is a guest in her body. Since you can't separate the two. Personally my preference would be for a woman under those circumstances to have an abortion, but I would never want to impose my preference on someone else's body. Now if they came up with a way to separate the two systems my answer would change. Until then, the self sustaining human has all the rights.
  • Afua
    !
    I agree. The role of government is not to regulate people for dumb shit. If she does drugs while pregnant and it adversely affects the baby, then let her deal with the personal consequences of that. Mind your business
  • Saving_USA
    !
    @jamie91
    " I would never want to impose my preference on someone else's body."

    Isn't this what the mother's doing though. She's knowingly doing harm to another human's body.

    When a child is aborted, the only thing harmed is a fetus. It's not an issue because that fetus never truly becomes a human. When the fetus lives long enough to be born, that child's life is going to permanently be screwed up because of the mother's choices. When the rights of another human being, not a fetus, are at stake, the mother should be punished.
  • miketost
    !
    Yes they should be charged for endangering their childs health and safety,along with the loss of government assistance if they are receiving such .My guess would be that most self destructive pregnant women in this situation are.
  • whataGOVwehave
    !
    @Denizen_Kate well in this case if johnny law knows that a mother is harming a baby....like smoking in a car...then they would be crazy not to do anything.
  • Jean
    !
    This question amazes me. Many say this is just a "fetus" if that is so why would we prosecute for drug abuse while pregnant when we ok "killing" what "they" want to call a "fetus" when in fact it is an unborn child? You are free to make your own choices UNTIL it infringes on the rights of others!!! I would say this AND Abortion are infringement on the rights of others. Until we learn to love our brothers as we love ourselves this type of evil will continue.
  • Neo_NtheMatrix
    !
    I don't believe in pro-choice. It means that a baby is a baby if the mother's whims that day say it's a baby. If her whims that day are it's not a baby, it's some tumor like growth in her body, then the growth needs to be removed.

    I believe in standards. I believe in the rule of law. I believe we all need to live by the same rules. Either it is a baby, or it isn't. I think most women would agree that a person doesn't become pregnant with a tumor, they become pregnant with a baby. If it's a baby then that baby has the right to be protected from having its life slaughtered, regardless of the motivation.

    This site here is a haven for those who do not believe in family. I'm heartened to see there are a few people, of which you are one of them, that consistently stand up for the rights for the unborn. Please continue to be a strong voice for those who have no voice. Your impact is heard and felt.
  • Jean
    !
    @Neo_NtheMatrix

    God Bless you for your resolve to the unborn. i will stay strong on this issue until I pass from this world. Abortion is an intrinsic evil. While it was evil as well in the killing of the children of Sandy Hook....this country kills millions upon millions of babies yearly with not a bat of the eye. God is counting. We are all called upon to do our part against this evil.
  • CommonSense
    !
    But as long as abortion is legal and constitutionally protected the drug-using women will just get abortions to avoid charges.
    Wouldn't it make more sense for you to oppose these laws now given that it will lead to more abortions and only support them if first abortion is made illegal.
  • Jean
    !
    @CommonSense

    Not sure I am understanding the point you are trying to make. I got one of those information emails from Rand Paul where he was proposing that Congress determine that life begins at conception. If he is able to accomplish that.....that point will make Roe vs. Wade null and void....because every life by our Constitution has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

    also look at this....heard this on Laura Ingraham's show and did a search and found this:

    Late-Term Abortion Death in Maryland: Time for Maryland to take action against late-term abortions
    by Anna Higgins
    Feb. 8, 2013

    Senior Fellow Peter Sprigg represented FRC today at a Maryland Coalition for Life (MDCFL) press conference in Germantown, Maryland where it was announced that a 29 year-old woman was pronounced dead at a Germantown hospital as a direct result of complications from a 3rd trimester abortion.

    The abortion was performed by Dr. LeRoy Carhart. Carhart, former associate of late-term abortionist George Tiller, was recently hailed a “hero” in the film “After Tiller” at the Sundance Film Festival. Carhart was the abortionist who performed a late-term abortion on a young woman with Downs Syndrome who died following complications from that abortion in 2005 at Women’s Heath Care Services in Wichita, KS.

    The young woman who died Thursday was approximately 33 weeks pregnant and came to see Carhart for an abortion procedure that lasted four days and ended in her death from apparent blood loss and shock, according to MDCFL.

    Another botched abortion at an Elkton, Maryland resulted in a woman suffering from a ruptured uterus and the discovery of three dozen late-term aborted fetuses in the clinic freezer. This led Maryland, one of the most abortion-friendly states in the country, to quietly enact stricter abortion facility regulations in July, 2012. Those regulations require licensure of facilities and basically mirror regulations that govern outpatient surgical facilities.

    http://www.frcblog.com/2013/02/late-term-abor ...

  • Load more replies >

  • DerivePI
    !
    I would leave this grey area to the parents. Parents have full responsibility and authority over their children (excepting murder of course). If you disagree with how parents are raising a child, feel free to use your first amendment right to let them know.
  • Realthinker
    !
    This is an incredibly complicated issue with no easy answers. I smoked my way through four pregnancies. I wasn't able to quit until I was 49. I don't know that facing jail time will force women to get help for their addictions, if I thought it would work I would be all for it. Preventing conception should be the goal. There's no perfect way to accomplish that either.
  • Happy2BeHere
    !
    Killing your baby with an abortion is legal. While if a woman smokes a joint or self medicates and takes a xanax, ohhh NO! That's illegal. Let's jail her and take her baby and throw him/her into foster care, how does that make more sense than getting treatment for the pregnant woman?
  • MarkJM
    !
    Yes they should, those "mothers" are punishing those unborn children simply to satisfy their own selfish addictions. Yes they should be brought up on criminal charges. Also look at it from a cost perspective. The cost for a special needs child skyrockets compared to a healthy baby. And 99% of the time these druggie expectant "mothers" will expect the taxpayer to foot the bill for them. So I say yes, charge them, force them through detox, and if they give birth to a "special" child, then they should be made to take the extra steps to help pay for that child, not the taxpayer. Taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for these "mothers" added stupidity and own selfish addictions.
  • Calfkiller
    !
    A person cannot turn off addiction just because they become pregnant. I think they should have a chance to speak up and get help. Likewise marijuana is not the equivalent of meth, coke, or herroin it depends on the "drug". I don't think late term abortions due to drug abuse constitutes a threat to the mothers health. I do however know of persons in my community that have had babies that were born blind and premature most likely due to meth use. Or a mother who had her baby prematurely dumped it on her parents went back to the drugs and had another baby 11 months later.
  • CommonSense
    !
    "Cannot turn off the addiction"
    First, what is addiction? Addiction means if you cease use you will go through lots of pain and possibly even physical problems(which you can go to the hospital and get through).
    None of that negates choice, it just makes the choice to quit use a difficult choice. A woman who chooses to keep using while pregnant has chosen that the pain and suffering she knows is coming if she quits using means more to her than the health of her future baby. There is a wealth of support groups and services for people trying to get over drugs too, so considering that she has even less of an excuse for not quitting or at least parting with it during the pregnancy.
    It also misses the point that not every drug user is addicted. A person could be pregnant, generally doesn't do drugs(but isn't really opposed to them either), and then finds a cocaine party in the middle of her pregnancy and goes to town for that night and then doesn't use the cocaine again. That could still cause problems in pregnancy especially if she had taken a lot. I find this even more heinous (even though I'm not anti-drug) because the woman doesn't even have to face terrible physical and emotional consequences from not using the cocaine like an addict would, she's valuing a night of partying over her future baby's health.
    So, I do put moral judgment upon women that use drugs they know are harmful to their babies while pregnant. At the same time, I do not support this law. One can support moral judgment and condemnation against a behavior while at the same time opposing a law against it. There are many practical reasons why this law is a bad one. How do we know the woman even knew she was pregnant when she did drugs? And if we do know that, maybe she didn't know it could hurt her baby. And even if we know she did know that, there's the plain and simple fact that this law encourages abortion. The woman can avoid prosecution by having an abortion. I'm pro-choice but I don't want to encourage women to have more abortions.
    So there shouldn't be a law, but if you come across a woman who is using drugs (including alcohol, cigarette, and some prescriptions) that could hurt their babies during her pregnancy you should let her know it is dangerous to her future baby and if she does it anyway you should let her know just what a terrible mother she is being. "Law" is only one method of social enforcement. In this case "shame" and "scolding" are more effective and also saves taxpayers money compared to using the law.
  • Calfkiller
    !
    @CommonSense The effects of drugs and alcohol aren't only physical, they are as much if not more psychological. In the first two sentences you negated the rest of your post. You don't know what you are talking about, and I'm not going to sit here all night making page long arguments w/ you. Don't ever try to advise someone w/ drug or alcohol problems, you will most likely only harm them worse.
  • _inGODiTrust_
    !
    Yes absolutely they should. It is know diffrent than if a mother is shooting up or snorting pills in front of her kids and letting them starve to get those drugs. I think like other posters that if they draw gov. Assistance then they should lose it and yes they should be sterilized. That's what's wrong with this country now to many PANSY FLIP FLOP LAWS catering to LOW LIFE'S. Stop bringing kids into this crappy world that you obviously don't want or need. Also children that are taken away from drug addicts shoul be adopted out if a parent relapses 3 times in a 5 year period because that proves you don't have any intentions of staying clean and you don't need to raise another addict. Please go ahead and hate on me because I have seen to much crap in my life time for these poor kids.
  • culinary
    !
    @jamie91 I would adopt every one if I could. Let me tell you a story...I know a girl that had a baby after shooting oxy the whole time she was pregnant. Her mother raises that child who was a preemie and has a learning disability. She had another, while still on drugs, who her dad isnow raising. And then she had yet another that was born with severe withdrawals for months. Before they could take that one she tried to SELL IT!!! To get money for more pills. AND she gets government assistance for EVERY ONE OF THEM!!! Now tell me how she shouldn't be steralized and kicked off government assistance. By the way, she's been to rehad THREE times.
  • _inGODiTrust_
    !
    @culinary that's what I'm talking about. You get where I'm coming from because you to have seen it first hand. Also I too would adopt these children and never let their birth mother know anything about them because they shouldn't have a right to these babies. They give up their rights when drugs become more important than the well being of an unborn CHILD that didn't ask to be created.
  • jamie91
    !
    @culinary you would if you could? So how many have you? I'm thinking a big zero.
    I am no fan of useless parents, but there are no easy answers because there are no homes for these kids. But taking away rights to their bodies is wrong on so many levels.
  • culinary
    !
    @jamie91 well, you know, since I'm not loaded with money...and it takes a lot of it to adopt...this is the only reason I havent. But you are talking about taking away the rights to their bodies? Really? You are saying it is these women's RIGHT to shoot heroin or pills, or snort cocaine while their pregnant? What in HELL kind of statement is that??? And we should just give these babies back just because? I petsonally have several family members that would adopt. I actually have one cousin who was within months of offinal adoption of two little girls she had had since birth and the court gave them back to their crack whore mother. They finally got them back because they were so traumatized by the conditions and attitude of that woman. This is right???

  • Load more replies >

  • R Load more comments...