In Alabama, a Crackdown on Pregnant Drug Users

phr

Bluelighter
Joined
May 25, 2004
Messages
36,678
Location
St. Charles, IL
In Alabama, a Crackdown on Pregnant Drug Users
ADAM NOSSITER
NY Times
3.15.08



ANDALUSIA, Ala. — A day after she gave birth in 2006, Tiffany Hitson, 20, sat on her front porch crying, barefoot and handcuffed. A police officer hovered in the distance.

Ms. Hitson’s newborn daughter had traces of cocaine and marijuana in its system, and the young woman, baby-faced herself, had fallen afoul of a tough new state law intended to protect children from drugs, and a local prosecutor bent on pursuing it. She made arrangements for the baby’s care, and headed off to a year behind bars.

“I couldn’t believe it,” recalled Ms. Hitson, who was released in November after spending much of the first year of her daughter’s life at the Julia Tutwiler Prison for Women in Alabama.

Two worlds are colliding in this piney woods backcountry in southern Alabama: casual drug use and a local district attorney unsettled that children or fetuses might be affected by it. The result is an unusual burst of prosecutions in which young women using drugs are shocked to find themselves in the cross hairs for harming their children, even before giving birth.

Over an 18-month period, at least eight women have been prosecuted for using drugs while pregnant in this rural jurisdiction of barely 37,000, a tally without any recent parallel that women’s advocates have been able to find. The district attorney, Greg L. Gambril, acknowledges the number puts him at the “forefront,” at least among Alabama prosecutors. Similar cases have come up elsewhere, usually with limited success. But Alabama, and in particular this hilly, remote terrain just above the Florida Panhandle, is pursuing these cases with special vigor.

In Maryland, the state’s highest court in 2006 threw out the convictions of two women whose babies were born with cocaine in their bloodstreams, ruling that punishment was not the right deterrent. Last year, the New Mexico Supreme Court rejected a woman’s child-abuse conviction in a similar case, declaring a fetus was not a child. Some doctors and advocacy groups maintain that the effects of drugs on pregnant women and their fetuses are not fully known; in Alabama, though, these arguments have yet to be officially made.

A cultural clash, unfolding within the confined world of Covington County, is at the origin of this prosecutorial crusade. Here, unlike in other jurisdictions, women are not appealing their convictions, and lawyers and doctors talk about these cases reluctantly, if at all. Too many people know one another in these quiet little towns that fade abruptly into the countryside.

There has not been a murder here in over three years, the prosecutor said. But a year ago a newborn died at the local hospital, and the mother had traces of methamphetamines in her system. Doctors told the police that the infant’s premature birth could be attributed to maternal drug use, and she was charged with “chemical endangerment of child,” which carries a sentence of 10 years to life in prison.

“In my jurisdiction, a baby being born dead because of drug abuse is a huge deal,” Mr. Gambril said.

Mr. Gambril makes little distinction between fetus and child. He said his duty was to protect both — though the Alabama law he uses makes no reference to unborn children, and was primarily intended to protect youngsters from exposure to methamphetamine laboratories.

“When drugs are introduced in the womb, the child-to-be is endangered,” Mr. Gambril said. “It is what I call a continuing crime.” He added that the purpose of the statute was to guarantee that the child has “a safe environment, a drug-free environment.”

“No one is to say whether that environment is inside or outside the womb,” he said, and no judge or other authority in Alabama has so far disagreed.

Covington County is an isolated rural terrain where drugs are a recreational outlet in the absence of others, where the police found nearly 200 methamphetamine laboratories in the first years of the decade, and where they made more arrests for abusing the drug than anywhere else in the state.

“This is a meth town,” said Ms. Hitson’s grandmother, Shirley Hinson, who helped take care of the baby while Tiffany was in prison. Speaking of youth here, Ms. Hinson said, “There’s nothing for them to do.”

The county is the kind of place where young women — white, working-class, on probation for other offenses — sometimes take a chance while pregnant.

“I made the biggest mistake of my life & did some drugs with her father right before I went into labor, unaware I was about to have her,” Ms. Hitson wrote to the court from the Covington County Jail, in neat schoolgirl script, pleading to be released after her arrest in October 2006. “Please, please let me spend this most important time with my baby,” she wrote.

But the judge had set bond at $200,000 — Ms. Hitson had earlier been charged in connection with a break-in, and with credit-card fraud — and in jail she stayed.

The environment can be unforgiving. Rachel Barfoot, 31, who had been charged before with beating her niece, told her probation officer that she was pregnant. When she tested positive for cocaine, she was arrested.

“I was in shock,” said Ms. Barfoot. “I told the truth, but the truth got me nowhere,” she said in an interview. Three months pregnant, already a mother of four, she spent five weeks in the Covington County Jail.

“It was hell,” said Ms. Barfoot, now jobless and struggling. Police affidavits make it clear that local doctors are cooperating in these investigations.

The women are sent off to county jails, state prisons, or drug rehabilitation clinics, and often emerge bitter at the collaboration of police, prosecutors, judges, doctors and social workers they say is less keen on help — Mr. Gambril insists otherwise — than punishment.

“In Covington County, I don’t think they’re interested in helping mothers,” Ms. Hitson said. “They’re just sending people straight to prison. It doesn’t help their drug problems.”

A few of the local defense lawyers express similar sentiments: “None of those cases should have been brought,” said Rod Sylvester, who represents another woman charged with chemical endangerment. “It’s an overreaching.”

But others bring up the powerful, unspoken community sanction against the combination of drugs and pregnant women. And so far, none of the women have risked trial.

“Our ultimate goal is to protect mothers and children,” Mr. Gambril said.

Meanwhile, Shirley Hinson, Ms. Hitson’s grandmother, is still furious over Tiffany’s year of imprisonment. “They took something away from my granddaughter and my grandbaby they can’t give back,” she said. “They made an example out of Tiffany. That’s all they did.”

Link!
 
Personally, I'm on the fence about this. I'd have to do a bit of research before I could make up my mind.


For now, I hope they aren't just signaling out illicit recreational drugs. I hope they're applying the same stringent laws to expectant mothers that are drinking, smoking, and using other drugs that may harm the fetus. Of course, I have a feeling they're not and they're being hypocritical. :\
 
I dont know how I feel about this. Drug testing babies is a constitutional violation if the guardians dont consent IMO. Just another way the goverment is getting in peoples lives. I live in Alabama and yes people actually do support BS like this. But then theres the whole protecting pople who cant protct thmslvs issue with the children. I dunno tough issue
 
^
It's a little more tricky than that consent argument though.

It's not like the fetus has a choice to not take the drugs if the mother ingests them. Also, it's not exactly proven which drugs, and how much, they harm a fetus. An example of that would be the "crackbabies" epidemic. That was completely blown out of proportion. On the flip slide, you could say alcohol wasn't once believed to be that harmful.


I think I'm leaning more towards the treatment side of the debate...
 
I don't understand why punishment is the best use of tax money.

I'm also wondering if they do the same for anyone testing postive for nicotine, cotinine or ethanol.
 
Ham-milton said:
I don't understand why punishment is the best use of tax money.

I'm also wondering if they do the same for anyone testing postive for nicotine, cotinine or ethanol.


I know its harmful to drink and smoke while pregnant but is it illegal? If it is then at what point is it illegal concepation? first trimester? when you find out? seems hard to enforce. I would also like to know how they test to find the drugs how long the detection periods are and such.
 
I brought up the point about pregnant women using legal drugs... I don't think it's illegal.

But, now I know at least one state has a law(or at least was trying to pass one) about smoking in a car while a child is present. Seems stupid if they don't pursue pregnant women who use nicotine...


Meh, drug laws don't make much sense to begin with.
 
I think the worst possible thing you could do in a situation like this is separate the mother from the child in its first year of life. That is cruel punishment for both the mother and the child in my eyes.

sure, taking cocaine whilst pregnant is a bit silly and Women have used marijuana during pregnancy for a long time, with no ill effects. but to take a child from its mother during the bonding time? how can anyone think thats a good thing to do ?
 
I think its about time.

these women sit around drinking, smoking, and doing drugs just because there selfish and want to have kids..
I think everyone of them should go to prison and loose there children forever.
They do stupid shit like this ..What makes you think they can take care of the kids after there born.
Sorry but I'm tired of these broads thinking about nothing but them selves. HAVEING KIDS WHEN THERE 16 17 AND 18 AND UP And all for there own stupid selfish reasons..

ITS ABOUT TIME
 
(but to take a child from its mother during the bonding time?
how can anyone think thats a good thing to do ?)

The mother should of thought of this shit before she opened her legs..

(ITS CALLED RESPONSIBILITY):X
 
the logic is flawed, like all of the logic behind drug war and prohibition...

how can government regulate what ways you can harm your baby and not?

once again its going to fall back to drugs like alcohol and tobacco may prove to be the most harmful but remain legal to consume for you and your fetus..

but other drugs that are illicit will land you in jail, its not uniform.

i don't think a mother should consume any substances while pregnant that can prove to be damaging to the fetus...

if the government is allowed to lock up a mother who consumes drugs then at that rate we should just go ahead and arrest all pregnant women and keep them incarcerated until the baby is born, that way there's no chance of that mother harming her unborn child...
 
Sportfisher39 said:
Ya well maybe we should lock all Mothers up...
From the looks of it that can't seem to control themselves 8o
Give them equal rights and look what they do LOL8o


If I was to solve problems with your logic

I would be locking up people like you instead
 
If I was to act as iresponsable as some of these Mothers then I should be locked up to..
It just sickens me how they say I love and will take care of my child..
And then they go and smoke and do drugs. Thinking of them selves and not the child..
If you want kids get responsible or take the conquences of your action
 
^ but where do you draw the line?

eg marijuana has been used by pregnant women for ages and has no known negative effects on an unborn child. yet by your reasoning, a mother who smokes a joint every now and then to ease the pain of carrying a child should be torn away from her child because she is not being responsible?

As a parent and a child of a mother who smoked tobacco i think your reasoning is flawed and inhumane. Yes, SOME women make bad choices that effects their child, but to take the child from the mother at birth? thats inhumane and plain wrong. Not every situation is as black and white as you make it out to be. And the fact that a pregnant smoker or drinker doesnt get thrown in jail is proof that these laws are simply there to give the impression of doing good to further a career or the prosecutors sense of "my shit dont stink!"

justice is nothing without compassion. compassion is nothing without justice.
 
I'm all about compassion,
But someone needs to think for the child, I read the article and it says the child is with the grandparents.
Where is the Father? I'm just tired of the poor choices some women make..
If you want a child get married, have a steady income for the family to provide for the child. Quit smoking and doing drugs

Thats what we did with our twins. Take a break for awhile My wife quit smoking for the sake of the child.. Its called planning

Too many women just don't care, I want a child and I don't care.. Its proven without both parents and harming the child before its even born the poor thing dosen't have a chance
 
I recon this hare stuff is just anothar examaple of why he have our babies at home wheres they belong.
And there ain’t no fancy northern Yankee city slichkers to tell us how to go about our lives take our babies blood and tell us cousin brother marriage is bad.
 
Good. Pregnant woman taking drugs is like forcing a baby to take drugs. I say lock them an asylum, give them proper nutrient and care, when the baby is born, put it into foster care, and throw the bitch in jail.

People using drugs when they're pregnant is ridiculous. They should be thrown away and spit on in their jail cell.
 
Instead of spending all that money prosecuting mothers using illegally obtained evidence (4th Amendment anyone?), maybe the government should institute social programs to help these people. Women who have babies when they're 16 are victims of a confluence of factors... lack of education about safe sex and they usually liver in dead-end towns with no hope. Seems the Bush government cares more about unborn fetuses than actual human beings.

Hopefully women's rights advocates descend on this poshit town and rattle things up =D
 
Top