Tennessee will criminalize moms who use drugs while pregnant

[Deleted]

So... wanting babies that are NOT born addicted to illegal drugs is "stupid and cruel"?

Really?

Why?

[NoNamePerson]

What about all the pot smoking mamas to be in Colorado? Where does pot figure into the equation  

[EVT1]

May 3, 2014 20:08:51 GMT -5 NoNamePerson said:

What about all the pot smoking mamas to be in Colorado? Where does pot figure into the equation  

Probably the same place it has been forever.

I doubt the legalization of weed changes anything.  Most women quit smoking, drinking, etc. when pregnant- why would pot be any different? 

[NoNamePerson]

May 3, 2014 20:32:53 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

May 3, 2014 20:08:51 GMT -5 NoNamePerson said:

What about all the pot smoking mamas to be in Colorado? Where does pot figure into the equation  

Probably the same place it has been forever.

I doubt the legalization of weed changes anything.  Most women quit smoking, drinking, etc. when pregnant- why would pot be any different? 

You're probably right. But, and I'm playing devils advocate now, what if pg woman decides not to quite and crosses into TN and gets caught smoking? Will she be criminalized in that state? 

[Deleted]

May 4, 2014 6:27:23 GMT -5 NoNamePerson said:

May 3, 2014 20:32:53 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Probably the same place it has been forever.

I doubt the legalization of weed changes anything.  Most women quit smoking, drinking, etc. when pregnant- why would pot be any different? 

You're probably right. But, and I'm playing devils advocate now, what if pg woman decides not to quite and crosses into TN and gets caught smoking? Will she be criminalized in that state? 

Based on Tennessee law... pot is illegal. So my guess would be "yes".

(that's just a guess though )

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

May 3, 2014 19:04:46 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

So... wanting babies that are NOT born addicted to illegal drugs is "stupid and cruel"?

Really?

Why?

Because this is not the way to do it.

Wanting babies born not addicted is a good thing, but this law is going to backfire and make things worse in not one, but multiple ways.  None of these is going to produce a positive result.

1.  It will drive the pregnant addicts underground.  This way, they not only will get no prenatal care, they will avoid medical establishments altogether.....even at birth.  If something goes wrong, dead addict, dead fetus.

2.  Pregnant women will also likely avoid social service organizations, no WIC.  So add poor nutrition (which was likely not the best in the first place) into the mix and you increase the risk for fetal defects, on top of addiction of the fetus.

3.  There are currently not enough rehab spaces available, so even if the addicted mom DID want help, her likelihood of getting it is going to be very slim.  As an addict gives birth to an addicted child, you can not just withdraw drugs as it is dangerous to the fetus.  Cutting off a drug supply altogether throws both mom AND fetus into withdrawal and would likely cause preterm birth.

It is a noble sentiment, but without the infrastructure (which isn't close to being in place), it is going to do more harm than good.

[Deleted]

Well... in defense of the law, NOT having the law wasn't exactly working... was it?

Could the law be BETTER? Probably. I won't argue that it couldn't be. But SOMETHING needed to be done. Maybe it just needs a little "tweaking".

And you may be right... some may decide to forego hospitals and the other assistance of modern medicine... but remember... some may decide to forego the drugs instead of risking the punishment. I'll hope it's the latter.

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

May 4, 2014 19:34:19 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Well... in defense of the law, NOT having the law wasn't exactly working... was it?

Could the law be BETTER? Probably. I won't argue that it couldn't be. But SOMETHING needed to be done. Maybe it just needs a little "tweaking".

And you may be right... some may decide to forego hospitals and the other assistance of modern medicine... but remember... some may decide to forego the drugs instead of risking the punishment. I'll hope it's the latter.

Addicts cannot forgo drugs.  They have an addicted fetus that is going to be incapable of handling withdrawal without medical intervention.  Forgo drugs, fetus withdraws and send it into preterm birth, or possibly kills it.

Mode of treatment is to keep the addict on minimal amount of drugs in order to keep the fetus stable until birth, then try to taper the infant off drugs slowly.  But then they can try to control some of the physiological symptoms.

There was not a law....but at least the pregnant woman was getting prenatal treatment. 

[Deleted]

Addicts most certainly CAN forego their addiction. Anyone that tells you otherwise is either uninformed... or a fool.

As to the possibility of an addicted fetus... that depends on a) WHEN, in the time-line of the pregnancy, the mother finds out she actually IS pregnant... and b) if she chooses to forego her addiction in time. Fetal addiction is not instantaneous.

Also worthy of note: there is a "the sooner you stop the better it is" situation at play. Yes, the fetus is partaking of whatever drugs the mother partakes of... but if the mother stops taking the drugs, then the fetus also stops. Much damage that is done to a fetus due to drugs is cumulative. This damage on top of that damage on top of some other damage... if the pregnant woman stops at ONLY the first damage and doesn't introduce more... it's only better for the fetus (and the resulting baby... if the fetus makes it to birth). And, let's not forget, the law has a provision in it that if the Mother enters into a detox program of some kind AND completes the program AND remains off of drugs for the term of her pregnancy... she can use that as "an affirmative defense"... regardless of whether or not the fetus is born with a drug addiction or drug related issue:

HB 1295 - AMENDMENT #1
... It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution permitted by this amendment that the woman actively enrolled in an addiction recovery program before the child is born, remained in the program after delivery, and successfully completed the program, regardless of whether the child was born addicted to or harmed by the narcotic drug.

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

And, let's not forget, the law has a provision in it that if the Mother enters into a detox program of some kind AND completes the program AND remains off of drugs for the term of her pregnancy... she can use that as "an affirmative defense"... regardless of whether or not the fetus is born with a drug addiction or drug related issue:

Getting into a detox program is difficult and expensive, at best. Very few states have detox programs available, and those that are available either have a waiting list as long as your arm, or cost an arm, leg and minor organ to get into.

IF TN has the detox facilities available (they do not), then this could be helpful. But even if a woman wanted help, they can't get any.

An addict has to want to be clean, they cannot be coerced as it is not successful. I have a step sibling that is a narcotics addict, as is her sister. Neither WANT to be clean and while one has been to rehab, it has failed spectacularly for her (and she is more addicted than ever - and causes her own medical issues so her addiction can be fed) because she had to be coerced into the program. Promises, promises......Lord, her mom has heard them all. They're worth nothing.

Right now, with no penalties, a physician can give a pregnant woman counselling in order to try to get her to quit using, and what help he can. But in the meantime, she does get prenatal treatment. Do you really think that the threat of being thrown into jail is going to be beneficial to the fetus?

[Deleted]

Oh I agree they have to WANT to. NO argument there. My point was that it IS possible. Those that WANT to... CAN. It's all about personal, individual choice. Always has been.

ETA: Ohhh... and the person quitting doesn't have to "go into a facility"... they have to "sign up and complete a program"... That "program" could be laid out by their doctor, or be some sort of "outpatient" setup... both of which ARE available in Tennesse... IF someone wants to avail themselves of them.

[zibazinski]

You want to be an addict? Don't have babies. You don't need to procreate just because you're having sex.

[Sam_2.0]

May 7, 2014 9:28:27 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

You want to be an addict? Don't have babies. You don't need to procreate just because you're having sex.

Which would drive higher abortion rates and more late-term abortions.

[Deleted]

IDK if it will increase late-term abortions. I don't think it would take someone 30 weeks to figure out whether you want to have the kid or not (but I could be wrong).

[Sam_2.0]

May 7, 2014 11:17:46 GMT -5 @beerwench said:

IDK if it will increase late-term abortions. I don't think it would take someone 30 weeks to figure out whether you want to have the kid or not (but I could be wrong).

But if you have been using drugs and your choice is late term abortion or face prosecution, I have a feeling they will choose the first one. Wouldn't be hard to get that approved for medical reasons if you believe there's something wrong with the baby.

Either that, or ladies will be trying to have these kids on their own and not going to a hospital, which could be disasterous for all involved.

From what I've seen personally, babies born addicted usually do ok once they go through detox. They have some learning delays later but the ones I know are typical kids. But where will they draw the line on this one? Will we prosecute moms with babies born with neural defects because they didn't take enough folic acid?

[djAdvocate]

May 8, 2014 11:44:43 GMT -5 Sam_2.0 said:

May 7, 2014 11:17:46 GMT -5 @beerwench said:

IDK if it will increase late-term abortions. I don't think it would take someone 30 weeks to figure out whether you want to have the kid or not (but I could be wrong).

But if you have been using drugs and your choice is late term abortion or face prosecution, I have a feeling they will choose the first one. Wouldn't be hard to get that approved for medical reasons if you believe there's something wrong with the baby.

Either that, or ladies will be trying to have these kids on their own and not going to a hospital, which could be disasterous for all involved.

From what I've seen personally, babies born addicted usually do ok once they go through detox. They have some learning delays later but the ones I know are typical kids. But where will they draw the line on this one? Will we prosecute moms with babies born with neural defects because they didn't take enough folic acid?

this is where i see this going.  mom's will become simply vessels for carrying children, and will be totally within the reach of the state.  the state will tell you how much sleep to get, what to eat, and what drugs to take: all under the guise of "because we care".

brought to you by the small-government-personal-responsibility party.

[truthbound]

May 3, 2014 19:04:46 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

So... wanting babies that are NOT born addicted to illegal drugs is "stupid and cruel"?

Really?

Why?

Only to stupid people.

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

May 8, 2014 12:08:27 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 8, 2014 11:44:43 GMT -5 Sam_2.0 said:

But if you have been using drugs and your choice is late term abortion or face prosecution, I have a feeling they will choose the first one. Wouldn't be hard to get that approved for medical reasons if you believe there's something wrong with the baby.

Either that, or ladies will be trying to have these kids on their own and not going to a hospital, which could be disasterous for all involved.

From what I've seen personally, babies born addicted usually do ok once they go through detox. They have some learning delays later but the ones I know are typical kids. But where will they draw the line on this one? Will we prosecute moms with babies born with neural defects because they didn't take enough folic acid?

this is where i see this going.  mom's will become simply vessels for carrying children, and will be totally within the reach of the state.  the state will tell you how much sleep to get, what to eat, and what drugs to take: all under the guise of "because we care".

brought to you by the small-government-personal-responsibility party.

Not only that, what happens when there is some sort of problem where the mom needs treatment.  Would it be denied because the 'powers that be' don't know what the antibiotic/painkiller/anti depressive med will do to the fetus?

What happens if there is a fetal defect that results in some sort of congenital abnormality.  Are they going to assume that because a baby is born with hip dysplasia (which at this point, there really is no known reason this happens) that the mother MUST have taken something to cause this?

[djAdvocate]

May 9, 2014 10:17:27 GMT -5 The Walk of the Penguin Mich said:

May 8, 2014 12:08:27 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

this is where i see this going.  mom's will become simply vessels for carrying children, and will be totally within the reach of the state.  the state will tell you how much sleep to get, what to eat, and what drugs to take: all under the guise of "because we care".

brought to you by the small-government-personal-responsibility party.

Not only that, what happens when there is some sort of problem where the mom needs treatment.  Would it be denied because the 'powers that be' don't know what the antibiotic/painkiller/anti depressive med will do to the fetus?

What happens if there is a fetal defect that results in some sort of congenital abnormality.  Are they going to assume that because a baby is born with hip dysplasia (which at this point, there really is no known reason this happens) that the mother MUST have taken something to cause this?

if this issue had to do with, say, testicles (and their contents), rather than uterii, i wonder how the debate would unfold.

[mmhmm]

May 9, 2014 10:51:35 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 9, 2014 10:17:27 GMT -5 The Walk of the Penguin Mich said:

Not only that, what happens when there is some sort of problem where the mom needs treatment.  Would it be denied because the 'powers that be' don't know what the antibiotic/painkiller/anti depressive med will do to the fetus?

What happens if there is a fetal defect that results in some sort of congenital abnormality.  Are they going to assume that because a baby is born with hip dysplasia (which at this point, there really is no known reason this happens) that the mother MUST have taken something to cause this?

if this issue had to do with, say, testicles (and their contents), rather than uterii, i wonder how the debate would unfold.

How about we take it all the way up to the prostate? 

[djAdvocate]

May 9, 2014 11:02:33 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

May 9, 2014 10:51:35 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

if this issue had to do with, say, testicles (and their contents), rather than uterii, i wonder how the debate would unfold.

How about we take it all the way up to the prostate? 

why not?  so, how would this debate unfold if the proposal were to regulate the health of the prostate?  if men were being told what drugs they could take, etc- to ensure that health?  if the prostate was given rights as a "living thing"?

a bit different, i would presume.

[Sam_2.0]

May 9, 2014 10:17:27 GMT -5 The Walk of the Penguin Mich said:

May 8, 2014 12:08:27 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

this is where i see this going.  mom's will become simply vessels for carrying children, and will be totally within the reach of the state.  the state will tell you how much sleep to get, what to eat, and what drugs to take: all under the guise of "because we care".

brought to you by the small-government-personal-responsibility party.

Not only that, what happens when there is some sort of problem where the mom needs treatment.  Would it be denied because the 'powers that be' don't know what the antibiotic/painkiller/anti depressive med will do to the fetus?

What happens if there is a fetal defect that results in some sort of congenital abnormality.  Are they going to assume that because a baby is born with hip dysplasia (which at this point, there really is no known reason this happens) that the mother MUST have taken something to cause this?

I had so many doctors reassuring me that there was nothing we could have done to prevent Aubree's heart defects, and there was nothing I did to cause it. Didn't stop ignorant people from making comments about it though. SIL very smugly let us know of all the things she was doing "right" in her pregnancy so that her baby would be ok. But I must have eaten a lunchmeat sandwich or taken a tylenol or something that I just wouldn't admit to because I was ashamed.

[Sam_2.0]

And to the other side of this, will it prevent people from continuing pregnancies once they know something is wrong? There was no harm to me and there was a slight chance that Aubree could make it so we waited it out to see what would happen. If a woman knows that she faces possible prosecution for a child born with "preventable" defects or prosecuted for a stillbirth (another article I saw), how many will choose termination instead?

[Wisconsin Beth]

But where will they terminate?  From www.guttmacher.org/pubs/sfaa/tennessee.html

Where Do Women Obtain Abortions?

• In 2011, there were 1,720 abortion providers in the United States. This is a slight (4%) decrease from 2008, when there were 1,787 abortion providers. Thirty-five percent of these providers were hospitals, 19% were abortion clinics (clinics where more than half of all patient visits were for abortion), 30% were clinics where fewer than half of all visits were for abortion, and 17% were private physicians' offices. Sixty-three percent of all abortions were provided at abortion clinics, 31% at other clinics, 4% at hospitals and 1% at private physicians' offices.

• In 2011, there were 14 abortion providers in Tennessee; 9 of those were clinics. This represents a 8% increase in overall providers and a a 10% decline in clinics from 2008, when there were 13 abortion providers overall, of which 10 were abortion clinics.

• In 2011, 96% of Tennessee counties had no abortion clinic. 63% of Tennessee women lived in these counties.
Restrictions on Abortion

In Tennessee, the following restrictions on abortion were in effect as of May 1, 2014:

Health plans that will be offered in the state’s health exchange under the Affordable Care Act may not provide coverage of abortion.
The use of telemedicine for the performance of medication abortion is prohibited.
The parent of a minor must consent before an abortion is provided.
Public funding is available for abortion only in cases of life endangerment, rape or incest.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

You do what they did when my mom was a teen, you drive to another state that does allow abortion. One of her cousin's was taken "on vacation" to California. Everybody knew what happened but you didn't talk about it.

Or you go the coat hanger/back door abortion route like in Dirty Dancing.

Not pleasant to think about but I tend to when I read about banning abortion. All you've done really is drive it underground.

[mmhmm]

Let's get the discussion back on topic, please.  The topic is not abortion.  The topic is drug use while pregnant and a Tennessee law.

mmhmm, Administrator

[Deleted]

Isn't it a crime to use drugs not prescribed to you by a doctor in Tenessee ?  Whether your pregnant or not ?   Why even create a law like this if it's just redundant.  More political grandstanding.     

[midjd]

Abortion is relevant to the topic. If women are prosecuted for giving birth to a baby with birth defects caused by drug use, more will seek abortions. This seems pretty obvious. The question is whether they will be able to obtain them legitimately or go underground.

[Deleted]

I mentioned this thread to my daughter last week when she showed me a FB post from a pregnant girl. The pregnant girl had posted a picture of a sign in her OB's office saying all pregnant patients would be randmonly screened for drug use. The sign said something about who they would notify if the patient tested positive, but I can't remember that part. Anyway, the girl was trying to figure out what to do since she doesn't plan to stop smoking marijuana. Other girls chimed in with how they kept smoking throughout their pregnancies. It was almost like they thought it was cute or funny. Very sad.

I think that girls and women like this that refuse to stop doing drugs will just stop going to the doctor for prenatal care to avoid being reported.

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

May 9, 2014 14:15:57 GMT -5 @pinkcshmere said:

I mentioned this thread to my daughter last week when she showed me a FB post from a pregnant girl. The pregnant girl had posted a picture of a sign in her OB's office saying all pregnant patients would be randmonly screened for drug use. The sign said something about who they would notify if the patient tested positive, but I can't remember that part. Anyway, the girl was trying to figure out what to do since she doesn't plan to stop smoking marijuana. Other girls chimed in with how they kept smoking throughout their pregnancies. It was almost like they thought it was cute or funny. Very sad.

I think that girls and women like this that refuse to stop doing drugs will just stop going to the doctor for prenatal care to avoid being reported.

Exactly.  Which in some cases can be worse than using the drugs.