Tennessee bill OKs criminal charges for mothers’ prenatal drug use

neversickanymore

Moderator: DS
Staff member
Joined
Jan 23, 2013
Messages
32,763
Location
babysitting the argument in my head
Tennessee bill OKs criminal charges for mothers’ prenatal drug use
Amanda Sakuma
04/10/14

A bill to allow criminal assault charges against women whose infants suffer harm from their mothers’ prenatal drug abuse may soon be on the books in Tennessee.

House Bill 1295 now awaits a signature from Republican Gov. Bill Haslam. The measure would allow prosecutors to press assault charges on women if an infant’s “addiction or harm is a result of her illegal use of a narcotic drug taken while pregnant.”

Legislation advanced through the state House and Senate this week, ending a long and contentious legislative battle in the last year over the efficacy of criminalizing drug use among pregnant women who already struggle with addiction.

State Rep. Terri Lynn Weaver, the bill’s Republican sponsor, hailed the measure as a “velvet hammer” that allows prosecutors to urge pregnant women to choose between jail time and treatment, The Tennessean reported.

Lawmakers brought the criminal penalty back from the dead after similar measures were defeated two years ago. The state shifted focus toward treating women and away from prosecuting them in light of growing concern that an increased number of infants are born dependent on drugs. Tennessee’s Safe Harbor Act, enacted last year, attempted to incentivize treatment for prescription drug abusers. The measure guaranteed that women wouldn’t lose custody of their newborns over drug abuse.

The Tennessee Department of Health reports a “ten-fold” rise over the last decade in babies born with Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome, typically associated with symptoms of withdrawal from opiates. Eager to curb the trend, lawmakers aren’t waiting to learn whether treatment is more effective than punitive action.

State legislators slid in an amendment to the bill that allows women to avoid criminal charges if they receive drug treatment voluntarily, appeasing early opponents in the state who argued against punishing women addicts. The bill also has a sunset provision baked into it, so the criminal penalty will be in effect until 2016, when lawmakers will revisit the impact of arresting women.

Opponents still worry that criminalizing prenatal drug use could deter women from seeking drug treatment or even prenatal care. Fear of getting caught or arrested could prevent women from seeking much-needed care. Others raise concerns that even if pregnant women turn to drug treatment facilities for help, the number of options would be severely limited for women living in rural areas.

No other state explicitly allows prosecutors to bring criminal charges against women who use drugs while pregnant., but a South Carolina Supreme Court found that late-pregnancy substance abuse counts as criminal child abuse. In Alabama, a state Supreme Court ruling found last year that a law meant to protect children from methamphetamine labs extended to drug-abusing pregnant women. Another 17 states consider prenatal drug use to be a civil offense under child-welfare statutes, the Guttmacher Institute found.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/tennessee-prenatal-drug-use-pregnant-mothers-criminal-charge
 
This is some really fucked up shit.
Nobody condones drug use during pregnancy, but to put such horrendous blame on pregnant women is fucking low IMO.
A zygote/embryo/foetus/ whatever the fuck you call it is not a child.
It cannot, by definition, be child abuse.
 
This is some really fucked up shit.
Nobody condones drug use during pregnancy, but to put such horrendous blame on pregnant women is fucking low IMO.
A zygote/embryo/foetus/ whatever the fuck you call it is not a child.
It cannot, by definition, be child abuse.

What if the child or children (if she has twins/triplets, etc.) are born and have health or mental issues because the mother used drugs during pregnancy? My friend's mom used drugs when she was pregnant with their older sister, and their older sister has major mental problems because of it. I have a friend who adopted two sons who have major mental and physical problems because the mother used drugs while pregnant with them both. Or better yet, how about if they want to use drugs and know that they're going to continue to use drugs they don't get pregnant in the first place as there are tons of methods of birth control that actually work like using condoms correctly along with the pill, the shot, etc. Abortion itself is not birth control and it's wrong of people to use it as such when there are other methods of birth control that actually work a lot better than abortion does and they are safer for the woman. I agree with Spain and their new revised law for abortion.
 
Last edited:
^ it's a tragic situation for any family/mother/child to have foetal harm arise from drugs being taken during pregnancy, but it is something the mother will have to live with for the rest of her life.
I don't believe the state should have to punish people who have already brought enough suffering into their own lives.
Addiction doesn't discriminate - mothers (or potential mothers) are just as susceptible to dependence on drugs as any other person.

I didn't intend for my post to turn this into an abortion argument - which is why i didnt mention it; so i'm not sure why you brought it up.
Nobody wants to have an abortion, but denying women the right to choose is draconian IMO.
but these sorts of laws set a dangerous precedent.
Personally I think this is a matter of human rights in the sense that
a) most drug related harm takes place in the early stages of pregnancy
and
b) this is the stage of pregnancy that women may not even be aware they are pregnant.

There are way too many extenuating circumstances in the matter of conception/pregnancy to make blanket statements about what is "right" or "wrong" about anything.
I don't really see many clear cut instances of "right and wrong" in any circumstance pertaining to conception or pregnancy; not in the sense that the legal system should get involved.
 
Sounds like it's gonna create more problems than it'll solve. But hey, perhaps that's been the plan all along.

Wars can create a lot of jobs, and can make certain people a ton of money. After nearly 43 years, the war on drugs has caused a lot of people to the "right side of the law" to become quite wealthy. On the other hand, it has caused a lot more people untold amounts of misery, suffering - basically hell on earth.

If you are an American who has lived in America his or her entire life, and you were born after mid-May, 1971, I suppose you could argue that for your entire life, you've been caught up in civil war, of sorts.

American 'drug warriors' versus American anti-prohibitionists. Round 43 - Fight!
 
I can't think of any other reason that some drug addicts wouldn't think this is a good idea than that they are just protecting their drugs. Clearly a newborn baby doesn't deserve to go through heroin addiction, and the perpetrator should be punished; also so that the mother doesn't put their abused drug before their child. Penalties (so long as they don't interfere with parentage, assuming the biological parent is deemed responsible enough to continue housing a child) seem like a great idea.
 
^ I don't follow your reasoning at all.
What about drug addicted fathers that cause their children psychological harm while they are growing up?
Should Vietnam veterans have been charged for being exposed to agent orange and fathering deformed children after they got home?

It is often more of a risk of miscarriage for an addicted woman to go through withdrawal than to continue taking methadone or heroin.
It is entirely dependant on the drug.

Do we charge a woman for killing her unborn blob of cells because she went through detox when she found she was pregnant?
This legislation is bullshit IMO.
How do you abuse a child that is not yet a child? It is illogical.
 
They should be sanctioned too...

What? Totally improper analogy.

It's about when the child (out of the body of the mother...) goes through withdrawal, not is a "blob of cells" and "dies" (which would precede life itself so you contradicted yourself).
 
The problem is that the law is built on the same false premises of the whole crack baby scare. Remember how that turned out? That was bullshit, about little more than bigotry. Very, very few babies are actually born "addicted" or more accurately dependent opioids like heroin. The issues of having a baby while using heroin have more to do with the trauma of c/t w/d, which is kinda ironic (better to keep taking heroin and "ween" baby off if they end up dependent at birth than to abruptly stop opioid use during pregnancy).

Next to withdrawal harming the baby or causing miscarriage, the way heroin and opioid "addicts" are treated and stigmatized harm the baby more than their mother's potential drug habit. I'm not saying these are good mothers - imho I wouldn't want the mother of my child using or doing anything that has any significant chance of harming the baby. But we don't live in a perfect world. Choices are not so easy or simple.

At it's heart the law is nothing but a bigoted bit of racism cloaked in a well-meaning protect-the-poor-babies paternalism. The effects of poverty (poor nutrition and prenatal care for instance) are infinitely more harmful than opioid use among potential or would-be mothers. If these folks actually cared about these babies, they'd be setting funds aside to make sure mother are well fed and given appropriate prenatal care. However, they're taking funds away from programs like that.

Like I said, this is thinly veiled bigotry, not some genuine interest in the well-being of newborns. Should a mother be penalized because she tested positive for opioids? Fuck no. She should be encouraged and given the support needed to bring a healthy child into this world. I cannot see how this law even begins to accomplish that in realty.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
^ well said
Yeah, my analogy (which one - they were all ridiculous, like this law) was ridiculous; but the point I was trying to make with the "blob of cells" remark is that withdrawing cold turkey during pregnancy massively increases the risk of miscarriage due to massive stress on the mother's body.
Forgive my sloppy use of language, it was about 530 am when I posted that.
As mentioned above, opiates/opioids are not implicated in foetal developmental problems in the same way as alcohol and cigarettes (for example). Wasnt there another thread about this?

What I was trying to illustrate was that a lot of things can mess with a child's development, and society doesn't always feel the need to legislate against them.
 
Top