Tennessee will criminalize moms who use drugs while pregnant

[swamp]

May 1, 2014 10:30:56 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

::I think you give our legislative officials too much credit. Sheila is right on the money with the slippery slope argument.::

Down with all laws then, because any law could be taken down a slippery slope to a ridiculous conclusion.

::What about women who take legally-prescribed narcotics while pregnant? You fail the pee test the same as if you were using heroin.::

Then you aren't using illegal drugs and so this doesn't apply to you.  There's a different argument between "should this be a law" and "how do you enforce this law". 

But prescription narcotics like Oxy will show the same on a drug test as heroin. How do we know which she took?

And lots of addicts have prescriptions. That's how they got addicted in the first place.

[The Captain]

If you read the article and quotes on Shooby' thread you will see they decriminalized this a few years back in an effort to encourage

NancysSummerSip posted the below which I think is key (underline emphasis is mine):

The law brings back criminalization, which lawmakers had eliminated two years ago as the state moved toward programs that incentivize expecting mothers to get into treatment.

Tennessee officials have wrestled with what to do about the growing numbers of infants born dependent on drugs and who often suffer from a condition known as neonatal abstinence syndrome.

The legislation would allow mothers to avoid criminal charges if they get into one of the state's few treatment programs. Haslam said he wants doctors to encourage women to get into treatment before delivering their babies so they can avoid charges.

TN moved to the soft glove approach a few years back in an effort to help the expectant mothers and things are only getting worse.  As someone who has family in that state I've heard about the exploding meth problem and the burden being placed on an already stretched social services. 

If you don't agree with this approach, and the prior approach didn't seem to work, what do you suggest? 

[Deleted]

May 1, 2014 10:32:49 GMT -5 The Captain said:

If you don't agree with this approach, and the prior approach didn't seem to work, what do you suggest? 

Mandatory abortions for crack head mothers. 

[The Captain]

May 1, 2014 10:24:02 GMT -5 midjd said:

There is a world of difference between a candy bar and heroin and we all know that. 

I think you give our legislative officials too much credit. Sheila is right on the money with the slippery slope argument.

What about women who take legally-prescribed narcotics while pregnant? You fail the pee test the same as if you were using heroin.

What about women who are prescribed methadone?

I had a root canal at 5 months pregnant and my dentist gave me some Tylenol-3 with codeine. Should I have been thrown in jail?

At any rate, all this will do is prevent anyone who has used any type of drug from seeking prenatal care, which will just make the outcome worse for both mother and baby.

Actually that's wrong - they can avoid charges if they get treatment. Unless, you're suggesting the mother actually wants to have her baby born addicted?

[swamp]

May 1, 2014 10:32:49 GMT -5 The Captain said:

If you read the article and quotes on Shooby' thread you will see they decriminalized this a few years back in an effort to encourage

NancysSummerSip posted the below which I think is key (underline emphasis is mine):

The law brings back criminalization, which lawmakers had eliminated two years ago as the state moved toward programs that incentivize expecting mothers to get into treatment.

Tennessee officials have wrestled with what to do about the growing numbers of infants born dependent on drugs and who often suffer from a condition known as neonatal abstinence syndrome.

The legislation would allow mothers to avoid criminal charges if they get into one of the state's few treatment programs. Haslam said he wants doctors to encourage women to get into treatment before delivering their babies so they can avoid charges.

TN moved to the soft glove approach a few years back in an effort to help the expectant mothers and things are only getting worse.  As someone who has family in that state I've heard about the exploding meth problem and the burden being placed on an already stretched social services. 

If you don't agree with this approach, and the prior approach didn't seem to work, what do you suggest? 

I don't think there were enough treatment beds to make the program work.

[hoops902]

::But prescription narcotics like Oxy will show the same on a drug test as heroin. How do we know which she took?

And lots of addicts have prescriptions. That's how they got addicted in the first place. ::

I agree there are issues with how to enforce the law appropriately.  That doesn't mean I disagree that it should be illegal though.  There are enforcement issues with every law on the books.  That's what courts are for. 

Example:  I'm against child porn.  I don't think parents who have photos of their naked babies should be accused of child porn.  I don't let some of the trickeries in enforcement convince me that we shouldn't have child porn laws though.

[andreawick]

May 1, 2014 9:48:36 GMT -5 giramomma said:

May 1, 2014 9:44:44 GMT -5 whoisjohngalt said:

so, are we suppose to protect the fetus or not?  it is a person?  do we charge a woman with "reckless endangerment"?

I think if a fetus is a person like our law says, then pregnant women should get the right to vote twice, once for themselves and once for the baby. 

I mean, corporations can vote with their money, and they are people in the eyes of the law....

Only if the baby is over 18....

**rolling eyes**

[whoisjohngalt]

May 1, 2014 10:19:16 GMT -5 Angel! said:

There needs to be more help for these women.  I don't want a woman to go to jail after the fact, I want them to get help while pregnant.  It is a slippery slope, but somehow the fetus should be protected.  A woman can get charged for breastfeeding while drunk...at the very least maybe a woman should be locked up for the remainder of her pregnancy for using certain substances. 

And as far as why it is a crime when a man hurts a fetus, but not always when a women does it....basically a woman has a right to decide if the fetus is a person.  If she chooses to get an abortion, then in effect the fetus is not a person.  However, I do think if she intends to carry to term, then there should be some expectation that she not use meth or get drunk off her ass.

There is plenty of help if a person wants to get help.

If those women wanted help, they would have gotten help.  Instead, they are too busy worrying about their rights, but not their responsibilities

[hoops902]

May 1, 2014 10:38:36 GMT -5 andreawick said:

May 1, 2014 9:48:36 GMT -5 giramomma said:

I think if a fetus is a person like our law says, then pregnant women should get the right to vote twice, once for themselves and once for the baby. 

I mean, corporations can vote with their money, and they are people in the eyes of the law....

Only if the baby is over 18....

**rolling eyes**

They also aren't people in the eyes of the law.  If i shut down a corporation I don't get charged with murder. 

[whoisjohngalt]

May 1, 2014 10:24:02 GMT -5 midjd said:

There is a world of difference between a candy bar and heroin and we all know that. 

I think you give our legislative officials too much credit. Sheila is right on the money with the slippery slope argument.

What about women who take legally-prescribed narcotics while pregnant? You fail the pee test the same as if you were using heroin.

What about women who are prescribed methadone?

I had a root canal at 5 months pregnant and my dentist gave me some Tylenol-3 with codeine. Should I have been thrown in jail?

At any rate, all this will do is prevent anyone who has used any type of drug from seeking prenatal care, which will just make the outcome worse for both mother and baby.

Interesting.  My dentist wouldn't do a root canal while I was pregnant bc of the potential drugs.  also, whatever they use for numbing wasn't OK with my OBGYN

[swamp]

May 1, 2014 10:38:44 GMT -5 whoisjohngalt said:

May 1, 2014 10:19:16 GMT -5 Angel! said:

There needs to be more help for these women.  I don't want a woman to go to jail after the fact, I want them to get help while pregnant.  It is a slippery slope, but somehow the fetus should be protected.  A woman can get charged for breastfeeding while drunk...at the very least maybe a woman should be locked up for the remainder of her pregnancy for using certain substances. 

And as far as why it is a crime when a man hurts a fetus, but not always when a women does it....basically a woman has a right to decide if the fetus is a person.  If she chooses to get an abortion, then in effect the fetus is not a person.  However, I do think if she intends to carry to term, then there should be some expectation that she not use meth or get drunk off her ass.

There is plenty of help if a person wants to get help.

If those women wanted help, they would have gotten help.  Instead, they are too busy worrying about their rights, but not their responsibilities

actually, there isn't.

treatment centers have waiting lists.

[mmhmm]

I'd object to this.  I'd rather see the woman put into an inpatient treatment program, personally.  That makes more sense to me.

[whoisjohngalt]

May 1, 2014 10:44:32 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I'd object to this.  I'd rather see the woman put into an inpatient treatment program, personally.  That makes more sense to me.

One could argue that it's again, forcing a woman.

[Angel!]

May 1, 2014 10:38:44 GMT -5 whoisjohngalt said:

May 1, 2014 10:19:16 GMT -5 Angel! said:

There needs to be more help for these women.  I don't want a woman to go to jail after the fact, I want them to get help while pregnant.  It is a slippery slope, but somehow the fetus should be protected.  A woman can get charged for breastfeeding while drunk...at the very least maybe a woman should be locked up for the remainder of her pregnancy for using certain substances. 

And as far as why it is a crime when a man hurts a fetus, but not always when a women does it....basically a woman has a right to decide if the fetus is a person.  If she chooses to get an abortion, then in effect the fetus is not a person.  However, I do think if she intends to carry to term, then there should be some expectation that she not use meth or get drunk off her ass.

There is plenty of help if a person wants to get help.

If those women wanted help, they would have gotten help.  Instead, they are too busy worrying about their rights, but not their responsibilities

No there really isn't. It is unbelievably hard to get health for addictions & mental health issues (which are often the root of the addictions). Then add in that due to their mentality & mental issues, they are often in a state of mind where they don't believe they need help. This country's system for helping people like this is unbelievably fucked up & why we have such a large prison population & the random shootings.

[justme]

I find it interesting that all the Democrats voted for this bill...

My main question is, besides the baby being addicted to the drug, how do they know any such birth defect is directly related to drug use? There's a lot of "may do this" "may cause this", but there's no "3 doses of heroin causes X, 6 or more causes Y" to be able to explicitly say that drug use caused the defects. How about if it's a mental delay that doesn't show up until kindergarten? Do you retroactively go against the mom and throw her in jail? How about alcohol? Excessive consumption has a known consequence, FAS, so would that fall under this rule? Even though there's no known tipping point of causing it and someone could be drunk the whole pregnancy and not have a child with FAS?


It's one thing to have a baby that has heroin in its system, and then test the mother (and search her home/car whatever and most likely to find the drug), but it's a whole other to just arrest women based on problems babies are having that may or may not be related to drugs. How much would it suck if your kid was born with a defect, you've never done illegal drugs your whole life, and you're hauled off to jail because they think you did that to your baby? Ugh.

[midjd]

May 1, 2014 10:34:40 GMT -5 The Captain said:

May 1, 2014 10:24:02 GMT -5 midjd said:

I think you give our legislative officials too much credit. Sheila is right on the money with the slippery slope argument.

What about women who take legally-prescribed narcotics while pregnant? You fail the pee test the same as if you were using heroin.

What about women who are prescribed methadone?

I had a root canal at 5 months pregnant and my dentist gave me some Tylenol-3 with codeine. Should I have been thrown in jail?

At any rate, all this will do is prevent anyone who has used any type of drug from seeking prenatal care, which will just make the outcome worse for both mother and baby.

Actually that's wrong - they can avoid charges if they get treatment. Unless, you're suggesting the mother actually wants to have her baby born addicted?

Yes, I'm sure anyone who is breaking the law by using drugs will be so confident that she will not be criminally charged if she turns herself in that she will do so with no reservations.

People love to trust the government!

[Angel!]

May 1, 2014 10:27:35 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

::A woman can get charged for breastfeeding while drunk...at the very least maybe a woman should be locked up for the remainder of her pregnancy for using certain substances.::

Isn't part of this that nobody knows they were using the substances till the kid comes out messed up?

I think that is part of what they are trying to accomplish and I don't think you can do that. I think the only women you can really go after are those that are caught using or high.

::basically a woman has a right to decide if the fetus is a person.::

I can't tell if you're saying this because this is what you think, or if you're trying to give the logic that is being used by some of these lunatics.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that is the logic. That is why someone can get charged for 2 murders if killing a pregnant woman, but an abortion is legal.

[NancysSummerSip]

May 1, 2014 10:34:40 GMT -5 The Captain said:

May 1, 2014 10:24:02 GMT -5 midjd said:

I think you give our legislative officials too much credit. Sheila is right on the money with the slippery slope argument.

What about women who take legally-prescribed narcotics while pregnant? You fail the pee test the same as if you were using heroin.

What about women who are prescribed methadone?

I had a root canal at 5 months pregnant and my dentist gave me some Tylenol-3 with codeine. Should I have been thrown in jail?

At any rate, all this will do is prevent anyone who has used any type of drug from seeking prenatal care, which will just make the outcome worse for both mother and baby.

Actually that's wrong - they can avoid charges if they get treatment. Unless, you're suggesting the mother actually wants to have her baby born addicted?

True and correct, on both sides. The Captain points out that charges can be avoided if treatment is sought. MidJD points out that the legislation could scare away anyone who thought about treatment, for fear of seeing the inside of a jail cell first.

Some of the stories floating around about this legislation are getting a little one-sided. This one, from USA Today, at least attempts to show both sides. In some ways, I don't blame the state. It's tax money that winds up taking care of these children, born addicted to addicted mothers who likely could not afford to get pregnant in the first place, could not afford prenatal care and may not be able to afford to raise, house, shelter and provide medical care after birth:

www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2014/04/30/tennessee-criminalize-pregnant-drug-use/8502813/
Tennessee women who use drugs while pregnant can be criminally charged for harm done to their infants beginning July 1.

Gov. Bill Haslam signed the legislation Tuesday after "extensive conversations with experts including substance abuse, mental health, health and law enforcement officials," he wrote in a statement. "The intent of this bill is to give law enforcement and district attorneys a tool to address illicit drug use among pregnant women through treatment programs."

The governor's decision comes after a week of mounting nationwide opposition from civil and reproductive rights groups. They argued that criminalization would drive vulnerable women away from drug addiction treatment.

"I understand the concerns about this bill, and I will be monitoring the impact of the law through regular updates with the court system and health professionals," Haslam wrote.

The law brings back criminalization, which lawmakers had eliminated two years ago as the state moved toward programs that incentivize expecting mothers to get into treatment.

Tennessee officials have wrestled with what to do about the growing numbers of infants born dependent on drugs and who often suffer from a condition known as neonatal abstinence syndrome.

The legislation would allow mothers to avoid criminal charges if they get into one of the state's few treatment programs. Haslam said he wants doctors to encourage women to get into treatment before delivering their babies so they can avoid charges.

The proposal also includes an unusual sunset provision, which means the criminal penalty will be in effect until 2016. At that time, lawmakers will have to revisit the issue.

[mmhmm]

May 1, 2014 10:45:39 GMT -5 whoisjohngalt said:

May 1, 2014 10:44:32 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I'd object to this.  I'd rather see the woman put into an inpatient treatment program, personally.  That makes more sense to me.

One could argue that it's again, forcing a woman.

If said woman is doing damage to someone else (namely, the child she's carrying), I've got no problem with forcing that woman to cut it out, Lena.  As long as she's in inpatient care with her intake controlled, she's not going to be giving drugs to a fetus (which is exactly what she's doing when she uses while pregnant).

[justme]

May 1, 2014 10:38:44 GMT -5 whoisjohngalt said:

May 1, 2014 10:19:16 GMT -5 Angel! said:

There needs to be more help for these women.  I don't want a woman to go to jail after the fact, I want them to get help while pregnant.  It is a slippery slope, but somehow the fetus should be protected.  A woman can get charged for breastfeeding while drunk...at the very least maybe a woman should be locked up for the remainder of her pregnancy for using certain substances. 

And as far as why it is a crime when a man hurts a fetus, but not always when a women does it....basically a woman has a right to decide if the fetus is a person.  If she chooses to get an abortion, then in effect the fetus is not a person.  However, I do think if she intends to carry to term, then there should be some expectation that she not use meth or get drunk off her ass.

There is plenty of help if a person wants to get help.

If those women wanted help, they would have gotten help.  Instead, they are too busy worrying about their rights, but not their responsibilities

The article states that there's only two facilities in the entire state that have in-patient treatment for pregnancy and pre-natal care that lets any other children the mom has to stay with her. Only 19 total (of 177) have treatments geared towards pregnant mothers. 

[whoisjohngalt]

May 1, 2014 10:50:59 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

May 1, 2014 10:45:39 GMT -5 whoisjohngalt said:

One could argue that it's again, forcing a woman.

If said woman is doing damage to someone else (namely, the child she's carrying), I've got no problem with forcing that woman to cut it out, Lena.  As long as she's in inpatient care with her intake controlled, she's not going to be giving drugs to a fetus (which is exactly what she's doing when she uses while pregnant).

Well, that's the part of the whole debate and something I really don't understand - CAN we force a woman to do something if she is causing harm to the fetus or "my body, I can do whatever I want" applies as it does with abortions?

[justme]

May 1, 2014 10:50:29 GMT -5 Angel! said:

May 1, 2014 10:27:35 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

::A woman can get charged for breastfeeding while drunk...at the very least maybe a woman should be locked up for the remainder of her pregnancy for using certain substances.::

Isn't part of this that nobody knows they were using the substances till the kid comes out messed up?

I think that is part of what they are trying to accomplish and I don't think you can do that. I think the only women you can really go after are those that are caught using or high.

::basically a woman has a right to decide if the fetus is a person.::

I can't tell if you're saying this because this is what you think, or if you're trying to give the logic that is being used by some of these lunatics.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that is the logic. That is why someone can get charged for 2 murders if killing a pregnant woman, but an abortion is legal.

Whether someone can be charged with murdering a fetus varies by state. Some don't allow it at all, others only after the fetus reaches a viability age, etc. I also know some states have forced abortion laws (like it's illegal for a guy to bash a woman's stomach until she miscarries) that might be applicable in car accidents?

[midjd]

May 1, 2014 10:48:24 GMT -5 justme said:

I find it interesting that all the Democrats voted for this bill...

My main question is, besides the baby being addicted to the drug, how do they know any such birth defect is directly related to drug use? There's a lot of "may do this" "may cause this", but there's no "3 doses of heroin causes X, 6 or more causes Y" to be able to explicitly say that drug use caused the defects. How about if it's a mental delay that doesn't show up until kindergarten? Do you retroactively go against the mom and throw her in jail? How about alcohol? Excessive consumption has a known consequence, FAS, so would that fall under this rule? Even though there's no known tipping point of causing it and someone could be drunk the whole pregnancy and not have a child with FAS?

It's one thing to have a baby that has heroin in its system, and then test the mother (and search her home/car whatever and most likely to find the drug), but it's a whole other to just arrest women based on problems babies are having that may or may not be related to drugs. How much would it suck if your kid was born with a defect, you've never done illegal drugs your whole life, and you're hauled off to jail because they think you did that to your baby? Ugh.

Exactly.

What is the goal of this bill? To reduce the drain on the system of paying for these birth defects? Or to punish women who endanger their babies?

If it is to reduce the system drain, why only single out birth defects caused by recreational drugs? There are plenty of prescription drugs that cause severe issues (Accutane comes to mind). There are also birth defects linked to the age of the mother at time of conception.

What about women who are made aware that their child will be born with severe problems (regardless of cause), but who refuse to terminate?

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

It is unbelievably hard to get health for addictions & mental health issues (which are often the root of the addictions



You either have the choice of a state run program (if there is one) or a charity driven one which often have wait lists as long as your arm. Or you have the $20,000 a month treatment center with a spa where all the stars go.

There isn't a lot of in-between. For six out patient sessions with a local rehab center it would have cost us $3k out of pocket. That's a lout of freaking money for six therapy sessions. In-patient cost even more.

Insurance might cover some of it but most insurance plans only cover so many days (usually 30) which is just enough to get dried out, but you're kicked back onto the streets before you have a chance to actually turn things around.

It's not so simple as "get treatment". If TN were making it so there were more cost affordable ways to get treatment that didn't have a mile long waiting list then I'd be all right with "treatment or jail". If you're going to give someone the option you need to actually make sure the option is available to everyone.

[hoops902]

::Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that is the logic. That is why someone can get charged for 2 murders if killing a pregnant woman, but an abortion is legal. ::

I believe this is governed by law though, not based on the whims of the woman as to whether the fetus is a person or not.  I just coulnd't tell from your post if you were arguing that the whims of a woman should decide on person/not a person...or if you were using that as what the logic behind it was.

[Deleted]

May 1, 2014 10:42:34 GMT -5 swamp said:

May 1, 2014 10:38:44 GMT -5 whoisjohngalt said:

There is plenty of help if a person wants to get help.

If those women wanted help, they would have gotten help.  Instead, they are too busy worrying about their rights, but not their responsibilities

actually, there isn't.

treatment centers have waiting lists.

and the wait is even longer when you're waiting for a bed and you don't have insurance to cover it.

[mmhmm]

May 1, 2014 10:53:00 GMT -5 whoisjohngalt said:

May 1, 2014 10:50:59 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

If said woman is doing damage to someone else (namely, the child she's carrying), I've got no problem with forcing that woman to cut it out, Lena.  As long as she's in inpatient care with her intake controlled, she's not going to be giving drugs to a fetus (which is exactly what she's doing when she uses while pregnant).

Well, that's the part of the whole debate and something I really don't understand - CAN we force a woman to do something if she is causing harm to the fetus or "my body, I can do whatever I want" applies as it does with abortions?

This thread isn't about abortion and it isn't going to be about abortion.  This thread is about drug use (including excessive alcohol consumption) while pregnant, Lena.

mmhmm, Administrator

[mmhmm]

Any further posts dragging the abortion argument into this discussion will be removed.  This is about drug use during pregnancy, not abortion.

mmhmm, Administrator

[mmhmm]

May 1, 2014 11:05:41 GMT -5 whoisjohngalt said:

May 1, 2014 11:00:56 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

This thread isn't about abortion and it isn't going to be about abortion.  This thread is about drug use (including excessive alcohol consumption) while pregnant, Lena.

mmhmm, Administrator

oh dear lord, you know mmhhmm, i had you on ignore for awhile just bc of this kind of complete lack of logic on your part

no one is turning anything into anything.  seriously, stop moderating where there is no need

Lena, I don't care who has me on ignore.  The fact is, we don't need another thread arguing abortion and it's better to warn in advance than to have to wade through it once it gets going. You don't have to do that.  We do.  I'll moderate where I feel it's appropriate to moderate.

mmhmm, Administratorrrrr

[sheilaincali]

There is a world of difference between a candy bar and heroin and we all know that. Trying to claim anything else is just clouding the real question with hysterics IMHO.

I realize they aren't the same thing but where will they draw the line?  Bring a gun to school and bring a small paring knife so you can cut up an apple aren't the same thing at all.  But with the zero tolerance policies both will get you suspended. 

I realize that people will disagree with me- that's the nature of life.  But I stand by my assertion that this COULD (key word being could) turn into a Gateway law.  That's what scares me.  The law is it's written TODAY is intended to punish mothers who harm their babies by doing serious drugs while pregnant.  I get that, I even understand what they are TRYING to accomplish.  But I can't stand by silently while they start passing laws like this because of the potential it has for future laws with more restrictions. 

Just because TODAY it's not illegal for you to take Tylenol when you are pregnant doesn't mean that 10 years from now they wont be passing laws to make it illegal.  And they'll go back to this original law as the precedent when they argue their logic. 

Actually that's wrong - they can avoid charges if they get treatment

Great and who pays for that?  I think when most of us think "drug addicted and pregnant" you are picturing some barely 20 something, with at best a minimum wage job, scrapping by.  The fact that she is going to PP or wherever in the first place to get prenatal care is huge.  Now you are going to add another layer of stigma and fear to that.  She is going to skip next month's check up because her loser boyfriend was smoking pot in their apartment when she got home from work.  It's a vicious cycle.  So you offer to what?  Mandate treatment?  So she walks away from everything to try to get in to a halfway decent treatment facility?  What's the waiting list like on state paid for facilities like that?  Because you know that Tennessee isn't footing the bill to send her ass to Betty Ford in CA.

Sending them to jail after the fact is pretty ineffective when it comes to the baby that's already been born.

Full disclosure-  A. my husband grew up in TN and most of his family still lives there.  B. I'm a flaming liberal.  and C. I, personally, take being a mom very seriously and get angry at women that would harm an unborn child like that. But I still don't think laws like this are the best answer.