Baby tests positive for illegal drugs? Arrest the mom.
 

Tennessee recently passed a new law criminalizing drug use during pregnancy. The new law went into effect on July 1. The first mother to be arrested under this new law was arrested on Tuesday - both she and her daughter (born Sunday) tested positive for amphetamines.

Here's an article about it.

Many people are celebrating the law, saying it will help more babies have a drug-free start to life; many people are criticizing the law, saying it will only cause more problems, particularly for the same babies the law is trying to protect.

What do you think, GC? Would you support a similar law in your state?

There will be both good and bad. We shall see whether the good outweighs the bad. I wouldn't want this in my state until the outcome of the law in other states can be measured.

Why do I see a rash of births happening outside the hospital or other safe and clean surroundings?

Exactly.

Oh that already happens. At least in Oklahoma, with every hospital birth, we already check the meconium for evidence of the mother using drugs during the pregnancy. Almost always, if the meconium tests positive, the child is placed into protective custody and if the mother doesn't really get her crap together, the baby is placed for adoption and the parents' rights are terminated.

The only thing that has changed here is that there are now potential criminal charges when the mother does that.. and you know? It's about damn time. One of the things I do on a volunteer basis is represent the children at the show cause hearings, i.e., a hearing where the state has to present evidence as to why they have reasonable belief that the child is being abused or neglected.

I have seen women who have lost double-digit numbers of babies to the state, women who thought that if they had their babies in a different state, their child welfare history wouldn't follow them. I've seen women who have attempted to trade their babies for drugs or rent. I have seen women who tried to give birth at home because they were too high to make it to the hospital.

I'm not saying that some don't/won't get away with having babies off the books, but I'd like to hope that in the vast majority of cases, someone reports what is happening to Child Welfare Services, and in my experience a lot of people do. There's no telling how many of these women slip through the cracks, but in some of those above examples I've listed, considering the cost these women cause the taxpayers, I would like to see the criminal justice system used as much as possible to reform/rehabilitate these women. If something like drug court with the prospect of long-term incarceration for failure was an option, I'll bet some of these women could be saved.. And if not, there's no rehab program like long-term incarceration.

Of course it already happens. 33girl was predicting an increase linked to this law. The effectiveness of laws depends on desired outcomes and whether outcomes can be attributed to the law. We shall see the outcome of adding criminal charges.

Double post/

And I want this to not only be about the women as though they impregnated themselves. Where the hell are the men? The range of "relationships" that resulted in impregnation are something to be discussed. It needs to be discussed in terms of access to contraception, adults being responsible for their eggs and sperm, understanding consensual sex (and help for people who are being sexually abused), and the need for societies to address the hypocrisy of encouraging reproduction.

All of this needs to be addressed instead of continuing to throw bandaids on a problem that has persisted for generations. Taking children away and criminal charges may be deserving but they are still bandaids.

Amen!

The criminalization of drug use is not the way to deal with addiction. Putting new mothers behind bars or otherwise straining their resources (fines, community service, etc.) does not help their children. I would oppose this strongly in my state.

Really? Every single hospital birth? Do the mothers/fathers know to expect that? Who pays for it?

I applaud the reasoning behind attempting to identify babies born into potentially dangerous/neglectful situations, but testing every single one really seems excessive.

Many states already practice this. I don't know much about the mother getting arrested but, child protective services will step in if the baby is born addicted. In fact, in cases where the mother has a drug history and is currently in drug treatment, they usually do tests on the baby when it is born. I'm an advocate for methadone for women who are addicted to opiates and are pregnant because its controlled by a doctor with a specialized DEA number, it helps with the cravings, and it's much safer than shooting anything into your veins which can lead to Aids. When mothers in methadone treatment, in NY, have a baby, the child usually gets placed with someone else at first but, later goes back to the mother if it is proven through her treatment counselor (and sometimes also a PO) that she is not abusing drugs.

Yeah the change is in the criminal charge.

The more I think of this the more I consider it a bad idea at face value.

I want law enforcement, hospitals, CPS, Planned Parenthood, and harm reduction/drug safety coalitions to work together instead of slapping each other in the face.

Researched a little more. It's not all, but in these cases, a test is likely going to be ordered:

• Drop in deliveries;
• No prenatal care;
• Placental abruption;
• Premature birth or labor;
• Physical signs of substance use;
• Self-reported substance use;
• Maternal history of substance use; and
• Previous positive test.

Yeah, I was off the mark, it seems.

I didn't know about testing the meconium but when I did an internship in obgyn the woman giving birth was always tested (not out of suspicion but so Dr. know what they're working with since not many people admit to using drugs) and then if that's positive they'd test the baby.

Well there's a perfect world and there's the real world. Some of these folks aren't too interested in making positive choices.

There was a proposal in Louisiana a number of years ago, or just the beginnings of one which would have paid folks to voluntarily be sterilized. Sounded like a good plan except folks were screaming about it being eugenics.

http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2...n_plan_fi.html

This isn't about perfect world versus real world.

That goes for all people. But this topic is about more than that.

It is eugenics because they are targeting particular demographics.

People who can't afford to have children seems like a legitimate demographic to focus on.

Because you believe in eugenics.

The average person in every socioeconomic status is financially and mentally-emotionally under-prepared for parenthood. Either preach to EVERYONE about birth control and parenthood preparation or preach to NO ONE. Do not only target lower socioeconomic statuses which will disproportionately target racial and ethnic minorities.

I'm not sure it would disproportionately target racial and ethnic minorities. There are more poor whites than any other minority. But so what if it does? We could eliminate generational poverty in a generation or two.

You need to learn what is meant by "disproportionate(ly)". Seriously. Read about it.

Wow. Have you not kept up with the failed attempts of the past 50+ years? Read. Before you rally behind any law and policy. Read. Read. Read. Everything that appears new is old.

^^^this. You want to teach people to fish rather than give them a fish? The make sure education works at all levels and ages. You want to prevent people from becoming disabled? Have a healthcare system that works for all socioeconomic groups not just the well to do. You want folks to be working? Don't allow companies to profit off of the community if they do not participate in the community (no drug sales to populace if you don't pay taxes and employ people from the populace.)

You're a sicko. That's all I've got.

I hope he was just trolling and really knows all of this stuff. I hope.

Yes and probably not, unfortunately.

This psycho who proposed the plan could have at least couched it in "population control to save the planet's resources" and offered the payment to anyone - rich or poor - who decided to get sterilized. Even though it probably would end up with the same result he was gunning for.

I agree.

If people choose to be sterilized it should be a conscious and well-informed decision not based on economic (and racial and ethnic) disadvantage. Don't target poor people with an overrepresentation of racial and ethnic minorities, frighten them, misinform them, and entice them with "free". This song has been sung plenty of times in the USA and around the world for generations.

I really want Kevin, some politicians, some community leaders, and some policy makers to research and read. Actually research and read some news articles, books, and peer-reviewed journal articles from 1900-2014.

And the other thing that kills me is...I have friends (middle class and white) who have asked for hysterectomies or tubal ligations and had doctors refuse because "you're too young to know what you want" and "you may want babies someday. You are a woman, of course!" But that's a different thread and a different struggle, I suppose.

:) It's extremely connected to this thread and this struggle.

I'm resigned to the fact that even if we spent trillions of dollars on public education and welfare and trying to teach people to fish, they're not going to do it. There are people who refuse to make positive life choices no matter what their opportunities are. It would be wise to entice them to make a voluntary choice to sterilize themselves.

In the past, these sorts of agendas just weren't ambitious enough and were blatantly targeted towards racial minorities. I would say make sterilization and payment available to anyone who wants it. Are meth heads looking for cash for their next fix going to disproportionately take this pay day? I hope so!

What are your solutions to these problems? Bitching endlessly about privilege?

Only based on your definition of "wise".

I encourage you to research the "ambition" of past agendas. Targeting the poor and targeting drug addicts is eugenics. The racial component is an added detriment of eugenics. It isn't THE detriment of eugenics.

And Adolf Hitler's eugenics and racial cleansing were simply about pride and intellectual-educational-economic success. The world is all the better because of Hitler. Folks are just too ungrateful and shortsighted to see.

(Does Kevin now know the definition of "disproportionately"?)

Oh hi, how've y'all been?

I'm pro population control but I think it should be done via taxation similar to how it's done in China. The first kid is free and for each additional child you pay a higher tax burden, essentially the complete opposite of what we have in place now.

Awesome idea! And once we get that in place, let's have Enron alumni operate the Treasury and raise the ghost of John Holmes to do safe sex education.

I'm going to live on an island and waiting to be abducted by aliens.

Oh, and do you know what else this would increase? The number of botched sterilizations, either by incompetent quacks or by doctors who suposedly do the operation but really don't, just fake the paperwork. Plus, it's really easy to reverse a vasectomy.

And people would get selective memory and pretend they don't know why that stuff is happening. The people who supported these agendas would hide and blame someone else for the failure.

Now why would a doctor do that? "Haha fuckers jokes on you in nine months":D

If you look at the direction society has been moving in the last 50 years in terms of government regulations in how you give birth to how you raise your child it really wouldn't surprise me if in 50 years from now one would have to file a permit to conceive.

Um, for the same reason all kinds of quackery exists? Because they get paid and then vanish?

Ditto docs who'll say "I'll sign something saying you're barren as the desert if you'll split the grand with me."

Easy peasy. Charge a $10,000 vasectomy reversal tax.

Medicare/Medicaid fraud is already huge. If this would put a dent in generational poverty, worth it.

And Hitler? You lose the thread DrPhil, Godwin's Law. Sorry.

You need to learn the context of Godwin's Law. It is not Godwin's Law when using Hitler in response to someone who is proposing a form of eugenics. Hitler is among the most noted eugenicists in the world.

You need to learn about eugenics. You need to understand how what you typed is the same thing that has been done throughout history. Same rationale, same justification, and same outcome.

So, yeah, Hitler was just minimizing the undesirables so the desirables could have more oxygen. No harm, no foul.