Tennessee will criminalize moms who use drugs while pregnant

[Angel!]

Even now some hospitals will test to see if the baby has drugs in their system when born if something is suspected.  A friend of mine who works with these newborns was concerned that I would be found with morphine in my system when DD2 was born.  Which honestly didn't make sense since the hopsital gave me morphine when they released me for non-progressing labor .  Maybe she was concerned it would not be in my record that they had given me the shot. 

In fact a quick search shows that this doesn't seem to be really ground-breaking.

www.newschannel5.com/story/15247323/mothers-arrested-after-drugs-found-in-babies-systems

MURFREESBORO, Tenn. - Two Rutherford County mothers have been arrested after their babies were both born with drugs in their systems.

New mothers Courtney Hardin, age 20, and Sabrina Scott, age 25, were indicted by grand juries in separate cases after their newborns tested positive for opiates at Murfreesboro hospitals.

The women were charged with reckless endangerment.

www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/10/28/moms-charged-when-babies-born-addicted.html

It sounds like the only difference is that the mother doesn't have to be caught using & drugs don't have to be in the baby's system at that time.  I think the real issue is determining that their was truly negligence & if this becomes a slippery slope for all sorts of health conditions.  Charged for spina bifida because you weren't taking folic acid or something.

[Tennesseer]

May 1, 2014 14:26:02 GMT -5 Bob Ross said:

If I lived in TN, I'd be more concerned about spittin' and pluckin' my banjo.

He was from Georgia.  Not to say one, maybe one and a half, like him don't live in the hidden 'hollers' of Tennessee.

[Miss Tequila]

I am 100% for the law. It is disgusting that a woman would take drugs while she had a life growing inside her.

I also am very bothered by the fact that a woman can kill her unborn baby but someone else will be charged with murder. How can you murder a "fetus" since the courts have decided that the baby isn't a person. Women shouldn't be able to have it both ways....

[973beachbum]

May 1, 2014 12:22:59 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

Yes, criminals will often take measures to avoid getting caught and convicted of their crimes. That in itself isn't enough to make things legal.

No it's not. I am saying the apparent whole goal of this is to protect the unborn child, not to punish the mother. If that is true then this law could royally backfire in their face and create more issues for the very thing they are trying to protect.

If the sole purpose is to punish the mother for doing something illegal then they've accomplished their goal.

But from the articles I read all this is allegedly being done for the good of the unborn child. Limited or no access to pre-natal care isn't what is best for the unborn child under any circumstances.

written.

There is no evidence of that that I have read.  If the legislators wanted to protect the unborn child they would put as many drug addicted pregnant women in jail ASAP while pregnant so they could monitor them to make sure they didn't take anymore drugs and to make sure their prenatal care was doing everything necessary to protect the baby.  That would cost the state lots of money though.

What they choose to do is punish the mom after the baby was born injured.   How the heck does that help stop harm from being done to the baby before it is born?

[whoisjohngalt]

May 1, 2014 17:25:09 GMT -5 973beachbum said:

May 1, 2014 12:22:59 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

Yes, criminals will often take measures to avoid getting caught and convicted of their crimes. That in itself isn't enough to make things legal.

No it's not. I am saying the apparent whole goal of this is to protect the unborn child, not to punish the mother. If that is true then this law could royally backfire in their face and create more issues for the very thing they are trying to protect.

If the sole purpose is to punish the mother for doing something illegal then they've accomplished their goal.

But from the articles I read all this is allegedly being done for the good of the unborn child. Limited or no access to pre-natal care isn't what is best for the unborn child under any circumstances.

written.

There is no evidence of that that I have read.  If the legislators wanted to protect the unborn child they would put as many drug addicted pregnant women in jail ASAP while pregnant so they could monitor them to make sure they didn't take anymore drugs and to make sure their prenatal care was doing everything necessary to protect the baby.  That would cost the state lots of money though.

What they choose to do is punish the mom after the baby was born injured.   How the heck does that help stop harm from being done to the baby before it is born?

My guess is that the cost pales in comparison to the cost of sustaining a disabled child who was born to a drug addict mother

[Ava]

I find this law horrifying. 
It brings women back several centuries; we would be relinquishing many, many rights.
Instead, why not offer rehabilitation, easy access to help and care? And make totally voluntary.
No woman should be forced into any situation because she's pregnant.
Yes, it's horrible that babies are born with addiction. But unless we as a society decide to monitor and control women throughout their whole pregnancy, nothing will stop them from doing drugs, drinking, smoking, etc. But until and if that baby is born (again, the woman's decision) it's not an independent person and it's part of her body.
For the record; my mother smoked for the first few weeks while pregnant with me. She didn't know she was pregnant, and she stopped the moment she found out. She's been a fantastic mother. What if I had some sort of defect because of that? Should a woman like her go to jail? Who's going to pay for treatment? And who's going to support and care for the baby while she's in jail?
Laws like this slowly take freedoms away from women.

[Deleted]

I personally believe that if one wants to do drugs, one should be allowed to do so... until such use directly impacts another, THEN that impact should receive punishment.

This law directly addresses the issue of "impacts another" because when a PREGNANT woman chooses to take drugs she is risking damage to the fetus that can/will carry over, past birth. That crosses the line in my opinion because it's not JUST her life she's choosing to mess with.

[lazysundays]

I thought the unborn have no rights, so how can we criminalize something done to them?

[swamp]

May 1, 2014 13:58:42 GMT -5 sheilaincali said:

I've known women who still were having regular menstrual cycles and didn't know they were pregnant until they were in the 4 months along range. Weird yes but it happens. Look at that whole "I didn't know I was pregnant" show. Most don't find out until they are in the 6 to 8 weeks pregnant time frame so there is still the potential for engaging in potentially harmful activities. Sushi, alcohol, unpasteurized dairy, rollercoasters, etc.

I'm one of them. I was 20 weeks along with DD before I realized I was pregnant. 

[moon/Laura]

we already have a thread on this. using the "recent topics" link at the top of the board is a handy tool.


notmsnmoney.proboards.com/thread/39135/lived-tn-bill

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

May 1, 2014 19:44:08 GMT -5 lazysundays said:

I thought the unborn have no rights, so how can we criminalize something done to them?

Once a heartbeat is detected (ultra-sound) that embryo or fetus in the womb is now considered a human being.

The morula becomes a blastocyst and will eventually end up in the uterus. ... A vaginal ultrasound could possibly detect an audible heartbeat at this time. ... Everything that is present in an adult human is now present in the small embryo.

A fetal heartbeat can be detected usually 22 days after conception which is around 5 weeks.

ETA: Moon, I think this thread was started before the other one in your link.

[moon/Laura]

yeah, i guess you're right, by one hour. that one has more post on it though, which is why I locked this one. they both belong in current events, anyway.

[Virgil Showlion]

I notice the law does have provisions to avoid jail time if a mother agrees to enter a drug rehab program upon conviction. Hence, a forced rehabilitation program for women who give birth to damaged or drug-addicted children.

I still doubt it will outweigh the negative consequences, but the law could at least have a positive impact in that regard. Of course, the positive only holds if drug rehabilitation is feasible--and effective.

[mmhmm]

One of the problems I see is most drug rehab programs don't last long enough to cover an entire pregnancy and too many of the addicts go right back to using as soon as they can get at the stuff.  For the best outcome for the fetus, an inpatient facility would be required until the delivery.  We just don't have the facilities available.  We should have, but we don't.

[Deleted]

May 1, 2014 19:44:08 GMT -5 lazysundays said:

I thought the unborn have no rights, so how can we criminalize something done to them?

No one is suggesting giving rights to the unborn. But once they are born they have rights... including the right to start their lives "normal and healthy" when possible.

At least that's my interpretation of the actual law... not the hype over it.

[NoNamePerson]

May 1, 2014 19:45:27 GMT -5 swamp said:

May 1, 2014 13:58:42 GMT -5 sheilaincali said:

I've known women who still were having regular menstrual cycles and didn't know they were pregnant until they were in the 4 months along range. Weird yes but it happens. Look at that whole "I didn't know I was pregnant" show. Most don't find out until they are in the 6 to 8 weeks pregnant time frame so there is still the potential for engaging in potentially harmful activities. Sushi, alcohol, unpasteurized dairy, rollercoasters, etc.

I'm one of them. I was 20 weeks along with DD before I realized I was pregnant. 

Same here. I thought I had a virus cause I was upchucking. The virus seemed to cure itself in about 12 weeks     And bingo it was a baby in the making!!

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

May 1, 2014 17:25:09 GMT -5 973beachbum said:

May 1, 2014 12:22:59 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

Yes, criminals will often take measures to avoid getting caught and convicted of their crimes. That in itself isn't enough to make things legal.

No it's not. I am saying the apparent whole goal of this is to protect the unborn child, not to punish the mother. If that is true then this law could royally backfire in their face and create more issues for the very thing they are trying to protect.

If the sole purpose is to punish the mother for doing something illegal then they've accomplished their goal.

But from the articles I read all this is allegedly being done for the good of the unborn child. Limited or no access to pre-natal care isn't what is best for the unborn child under any circumstances.

written.

There is no evidence of that that I have read.  If the legislators wanted to protect the unborn child they would put as many drug addicted pregnant women in jail ASAP while pregnant so they could monitor them to make sure they didn't take anymore drugs and to make sure their prenatal care was doing everything necessary to protect the baby.  That would cost the state lots of money though.

What they choose to do is punish the mom after the baby was born injured.   How the heck does that help stop harm from being done to the baby before it is born?

Putting the mother in jail.....presumably cutting off her drug supply, could be even worse for both.  

For someone who is addicted, throwing them into withdrawal that is not controlled would have physiological effects on BOTH the mother and fetus, that could result in a very preterm birth.

When a mother is an addict, the baby is too and going cold turkey while the fetus is still a fetus is a phenomenally bad idea as medical professionals have no way to help the fetus taper off or withdraw.

[973beachbum]

The Walk of the Penguin Mich I agree with you that they would absolutely need to be monitored by medical professionals.  I could have sworn I read something about a methodone program for pregnant women for the reason you said.  It was fairly expensive and is seen by some as "condoning" bad behavior.

I just don't think this has anything to do with the health of the baby for both the reason you stated, and the fact that all anyone seems to want to do is put mom in jail after the fact.  What the heck good can that possibly do anyone?

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

May 2, 2014 9:17:59 GMT -5 973beachbum said:

The Walk of the Penguin Mich I agree with you that they would absolutely need to be monitored by medical professionals.  I could have sworn I read something about a methodone program for pregnant women for the reason you said.  It was fairly expensive and is seen by some as "condoning" bad behavior.

I just don't think this has anything to do with the health of the baby for both the reason you stated, and the fact that all anyone seems to want to do is put mom in jail after the fact.  What the heck good can that possibly do anyone?

I believe that when a pregnant woman wants help overcoming her addiction, they taper her down very slowly, slow enough to avoid sending her into withdrawal.  From what I understand, it becomes quite the balancing act.  

This is just a bad law all around, I doubt the legislators had any medical professional input whatsoever.

[Sam_2.0]

This is not going to have the intended outcome. Now these ladies will just get late term abortions to avoid being prosecuted. I can see a termination for medical reasons being approved here. So I guess we are saying that's the better alternative to having kids born with mental and physical delays.

[truthbound]

May 1, 2014 9:38:27 GMT -5 The Captain said:

So we can charge a man with a crime if he engages in actions that cause harm to a fetus but we cry foul when the same standard is applied to the woman actually carrying them?

Just trying to understand the thought process here.

Don't try.

[Ava]

So a pregnant woman can drink and smoke without getting penalized, correct?
She'll only go to jail if she does drugs. Does that make any sense?
That law is SEXIST; why are men exempt?
If the biological father does drugs or is an alcoholic it affects the baby, too, but men are not being prosecuted and punished for that.
The new law will mostly affect poor women, and what would happen to her minor children, if she has any, while she's in jail?
After she gets out, how is she supposed to find a job to support her family with a criminal record?
TN should expand access to healthcare and treatment programs, and get rid of this barbaric law.

[Deleted]

The law is no more sexist than "my body, my choice" (something I am ALL for, by the way) is.

Some women want choice when it benefits them... but not when it doesn't. Well, too bad. You have to take the bad with the good.

If men could biologically carry a fetus... this law would cover them too. This law isn't about what was done BEFORE the fetus was conceived... it's about the damage/addiction that's caused by drug use, WHILE the fetus is forming, that results in the birth of an addicted or defective baby.

[djAdvocate]

May 2, 2014 22:05:06 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

The law is no more sexist than "my body, my choice" (something I am ALL for, by the way) is.

Some women want choice when it benefits them... but not when it doesn't. Well, too bad. You have to take the bad with the good.

If men could biologically carry a fetus... this law would cover them too. This law isn't about what was done BEFORE the fetus was conceived... it's about the damage/addiction that's caused by drug use, WHILE the fetus is forming, that results in the birth of an addicted or defective baby.

you are absolutely right to conclude that this is no different than being anti-abortion.  it really is not any different at all.  the same logic is at play.  if you regard the fetus as "human life" with the rights associated with all other human life, then there is no limit to the protections you would grant the fetus, if you carry that position to the logical extreme.

likewise, it can easily be argued that since infants and toddlers are totally dependent on their mothers, that the difference between abortion and infantacide is completely arbitrary, and so it makes little sense to be pro-choice and anti-infanticide, if you argue that position to the logical extreme.

however, most people are not extremists on this issue.  so we end up with a policy that allows abortion and abuse of the fetus up to the point of viability in pretty much every nation, and is significantly less tolerant of those things after that point in most nations.

[Deleted]

Up to the point of viability, the Mother's rights trump the "rights" of the fetus. If, however, the Mother chooses to carry to term, then she is responsible for her choices and how they affected her newborn.

Think of it like a Sword of Damocles. As long as the rope holding the sword remains firm (I.E. as long as you remain pregnant, and the baby is not viable), you can play under the sword all you want, without consequences. But, if you cut the cord holding the sword (I.E. give birth to the baby, or the baby becomes viable), the rules change.

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

May 2, 2014 20:53:06 GMT -5 Ava said:

So a pregnant woman can drink and smoke without getting penalized, correct?
She'll only go to jail if she does drugs. Does that make any sense?
That law is SEXIST; why are men exempt?
If the biological father does drugs or is an alcoholic it affects the baby, too, but men are not being prosecuted and punished for that.
The new law will mostly affect poor women, and what would happen to her minor children, if she has any, while she's in jail?
After she gets out, how is she supposed to find a job to support her family with a criminal record?
TN should expand access to healthcare and treatment programs, and get rid of this barbaric law.

All the man does is "plant the seed". The woman's body holds that seed (sperm) which - if it takes hold to an egg and starts to grow in her uterus, turns into a fetus. HER blood and everything she ingests (including alcohol or drugs)flows through/feeds the fetus to help it develop and grow. If those fluids from her body entering the fetus contain substances such as alcohol or drugs, that's what the unborn baby gets "fed" and has a high chance of becoming addicted to before birth, whether it's drugs or alcohol. Cigarette smoking during pregnancy by the expectant mother can also cause serious health problems for the unborn child.

She and she alone bears responsibility for caring for that unborn child and not putting its life/health in danger by making bad choices (drinking drugs).











.

[Ava]

May 3, 2014 1:24:02 GMT -5 ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ said:

May 2, 2014 20:53:06 GMT -5 Ava said:

So a pregnant woman can drink and smoke without getting penalized, correct?
She'll only go to jail if she does drugs. Does that make any sense?
That law is SEXIST; why are men exempt?
If the biological father does drugs or is an alcoholic it affects the baby, too, but men are not being prosecuted and punished for that.
The new law will mostly affect poor women, and what would happen to her minor children, if she has any, while she's in jail?
After she gets out, how is she supposed to find a job to support her family with a criminal record?
TN should expand access to healthcare and treatment programs, and get rid of this barbaric law.

All the man does is "plant the seed". The woman's body holds that seed (sperm) which - if it takes hold to an egg and starts to grow in her uterus, turns into a fetus. HER blood and everything she ingests (including alcohol or drugs)flows through/feeds the fetus to help it develop and grow. If those fluids from her body entering the fetus contain substances such as alcohol or drugs, that's what the unborn baby gets "fed" and has a high chance of becoming addicted to before birth, whether it's drugs or alcohol. Cigarette smoking during pregnancy by the expectant mother can also cause serious health problems for the unborn child.

She and she alone bears responsibility for caring for that unborn child and not putting its life/health in danger by making bad choices (drinking drugs).











.

I understand that, but alcoholic or drug addict men's sperm also affect the fetus.
Yes, the mother's behavior affects the fetus more. So what?
I still don't think men are blameless. And again, if a pregnant woman gets drunk everyday or chain-smokes, TN is fine with that.
Access to healthcare and treatment are the solution, not a barbaric law like this one.
Again, it's just my very humble opinion.

[djAdvocate]

May 3, 2014 0:58:30 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Up to the point of viability, the Mother's rights trump the "rights" of the fetus. If, however, the Mother chooses to carry to term, then she is responsible for her choices and how they affected her newborn.

Think of it like a Sword of Damocles. As long as the rope holding the sword remains firm (I.E. as long as you remain pregnant, and the baby is not viable), you can play under the sword all you want, without consequences. But, if you cut the cord holding the sword (I.E. give birth to the baby, or the baby becomes viable), the rules change.

i am not really arguing with you.  in fact, i think we generally agree on this.  i am just pointing out how i see the logic of this debate.

of course, there is a completely irrational part of this debate too.  i am intentionally leaving that out. 

[Deleted]

May 3, 2014 9:56:16 GMT -5 Ava said:

May 3, 2014 1:24:02 GMT -5 ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ said:

All the man does is "plant the seed". The woman's body holds that seed (sperm) which - if it takes hold to an egg and starts to grow in her uterus, turns into a fetus. HER blood and everything she ingests (including alcohol or drugs)flows through/feeds the fetus to help it develop and grow. If those fluids from her body entering the fetus contain substances such as alcohol or drugs, that's what the unborn baby gets "fed" and has a high chance of becoming addicted to before birth, whether it's drugs or alcohol. Cigarette smoking during pregnancy by the expectant mother can also cause serious health problems for the unborn child.

She and she alone bears responsibility for caring for that unborn child and not putting its life/health in danger by making bad choices (drinking drugs).











.

I understand that, but alcoholic or drug addict men's sperm also affect the fetus.
Yes, the mother's behavior affects the fetus more. So what?
I still don't think men are blameless. And again, if a pregnant woman gets drunk everyday or chain-smokes, TN is fine with that.
Access to healthcare and treatment are the solution, not a barbaric law like this one.
Again, it's just my very humble opinion.

Last time I checked, smoking and drinking were perfectly legal. I could be wrong though (I don't smoke, and I RARELY drink... nothing against those that do... I just don't have the time or money for alcohol, and cigarettes make me ill). Has prohibition returned?

To me there's a difference between adding possible penalties to an ALREADY illegal act... and MAKING something illegal.

And I don't think "TN is fine with" pregnant women getting drunk every day or chain smoking. That's a stupid thing to say. They are just adding another penalty to an already punishable offense (ILLEGAL drug use).

[Ava]

Swing it anyway you like; the only stupid and cruel thing here is this law.