Arresting Pregnant Moms On Drugs

Sugargirl1019

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mbvd/first-woman-charged-under-new-pregnancy-drug-law-in-tennesse?bffb&s=mobile

What do you guys think? This is a lot of justice and rights for newborn babies, I think.

LizM61409

I think it's horrible. When women know they risk arrest by coming to the doctor and admitting their drug use, this makes them MUCH less likely to a) come to the doctor, and b) admit their drug use while they're pregnant.

Skipping prenatal care means increased risk of LOTS of problems, in this group there's particular concern about HIV transmission to baby, since women who use IV drugs are at a higher risk for having HIV and not knowing it. We test all pregnant women for HIV early on so the risk of transmission to the infant can be reduced. If the drug users skip prenatal care due to fear of arrest, you lose that and many other benefits of prenatal care.

These women also will be much less likely to get appropriate drug treatment in pregnancy. It's much better for the infant for the mother to be taking a stable dose of methadone than for her to use whatever her other drug of choice was. Again, if these women fear arrest as a result of admitting drug use to a medical provider they lose the benefit of treatment.

Not to mention this is a HORRIBLE slippery slope. What if a mom took chemo for cancer while pregnant and her infant was born with a problem? Should she be arrested? How about if she gets in a bad car accident? Should we say it was her fault for taking the risk of driving? The minute laws like this are passed, they chip away at women's rights as people in favor of them being only a fetus carrier.

emmyg65

It's awful. This law grossly misunderstands the disease of addiction and treats women like walking baby incubators, not people with rights.

MamaAlly89

We have something similar where I live. If mom comes in to give birth and the doctor suspects drug use they can test her or the baby after its born. If there is a positive test social services are immediately called and the baby is taken away from the mom. I know mom can fight to get baby back but I'm not sure the exact process on that.

You would be amazed how many babies are born every day addicted to drugs. My mom works in a NICU where all she does for 12 hours a day is take care of withdrawing newborns. I don't know if anybody has seen what a baby goes through when they are withdrawing but it is terrible.

My question for the people that oppose this law is , where do the rights start for the newborn baby?

While I agree that maybe being arrested right off the bat isn't the best way to go about this. I do think there needs to be something done.

chibiyui

Yeah. I dislike this law as well. I get what people are thinking when the pass these laws, "Oh, this will deter people from using drugs if they can be punished for it" Except, these drugs are already illegal. So, this isn't really going to act as a deterrent to anyone currently addicted to drugs, it will just make it easier to punish them/increase jail time. 

If those who made/passed this law CARED about new born lives, they'd offer an amnesty program and rehab to pregnant women, in the interest of getting them clean and keeping families intact. But that probably won't happen because "family values" in this country roughly translates to "fuck off whores"

mysticl

I sincerely hate this.  It's up there with court ordered c-sections on my list of the horrible way the law treats pregnant women.  

Roe V. Wade gave us the right to choose but apparently once you choose to not have an abortion you give up your choice in a bunch of other things.  

VulgarGirl

I have a friend who use to use crystal meth (along with some other drugs, because lets be honest it's rarely just one), his now ex-wife used with him. During their drug use they decided they wanted to have a kid and she managed to get pregnant. They swore up and down and side to side they were done with drugs. She would not use while pregnant. And that lasted a whole 24 hours. She used, just a little. Just enough to ya know, be normal. And just some on the weekend, ya know moderation. And just a little here and there. 

Long, sad, story short, the baby did not survive the pregnancy. Stillborn 22 weeks. While she was still in the hospital, my friend went out and scored them some crystal to use to deal with the death of their child. The child they wanted. The child she started decorating a nursery for. 

He eventually got clean and they split up. As far as he knows, she's still using and has had one child born addicted and taken by the state. And she is still using.

That's addiction. She's been locked up and forced to detox and then she gets out and uses again. Punishing someone for being an addict isn't going to take away the addiction.

slothiegal

I truly believe that the people who come up with these laws have never been around/known/cared for/worked with a drug addict before.

ETA:  Threw in an extra word for some reason.

xnotbobx

It's so awful. Court-ordering rehab and support services to continue after pregnancy for drug use? Maybe. Arrest and jail? No.

ohannabelle

While I agree with the idea that inspired it- that no child should have drug use and addiction forced upon them by a parent, which is a heinous, horrible wrong- it is a useless law, that will accomplish nothing, will probably keep addicts from seeking medical attention, and a dangerous law. Because where will this lead? To what extent can "healthy" practices be forced on pregnant women?And yes:

slothiegal said: I truly believe that the people who come up with these laws action have never been around/known/cared for/worked with a drug addict before.
Exactly this. There is no law that can keep an addict from using. If you threatened them with the death penalty, a junkie wouldn't care. Even in prison, junkies find ways to get drugs. 

ETA: knot eating paragraphs and weirdass formatting.

mysticl

ohannabelle said:

While I agree with the idea that inspired it- that no child should have drug use and addiction forced upon them by a parent, which is a heinous, horrible wrong- it is a useless law, that will accomplish nothing, will probably keep addicts from seeking medical attention, and a dangerous law. Because where will this lead? To what extent can "healthy" practices be forced on pregnant women?And yes:

slothiegal said:

I truly believe that the people who come up with these laws action have never been around/known/cared for/worked with a drug addict before.

Exactly this. There is no law that can keep an addict from using. If you threatened them with the death penalty, a junkie wouldn't care. Even in prison, junkies find ways to get drugs. 

ETA: knot eating paragraphs and weirdass formatting.

Like this case. They went into her home, forced her into the hospital, and cut her open against her will.  http://www.leagle.com/decision/1999131366FSupp2d1247_11197

offensivekitten2

It's dangerous and yet another step in the methodical erosion of women's rights.

Say you are an addicted woman, spiraling from guilt and fear because you know your pregnancy is in danger, but you can't help yourself.  You NEED help.  Where do you go?  The new answer is fucking nowhere.

Congrats on making sure addicted women kill their babies instead of getting help.

lyndausvi

In theory it sounds great. Who doesn't want to help a baby? Reality is I think it's a horrible idea and might end up hurting kids then helping them. An addict already has the threat of jail, I do not think being pregnant is going to change that.

banana468

I'm all about keeping a baby healthy but I don't like the law either.

I also don't think that a child born to a drug-addicted mother should stay with the mother either.   Mom has proven that she wasn't making responsible decisions and it's not fair to the baby to be with an addict.

That said, I feel like the disease of addiction is just far too ugly to just treat with jail and it's not going to be successful on a variety of levels.     I don't know the answer of how to treat a drug addicted woman through pregnancy but I don't think that incarceration is the answer.   

theartistformerlyknownas

Just coming to congratulate @offensivekitten2 - just saw your new siggie! Yay! Congrats!

mysticl

banana468 said:

I'm all about keeping a baby healthy but I don't like the law either.

I also don't think that a child born to a drug-addicted mother should stay with the mother either.   Mom has proven that she wasn't making responsible decisions and it's not fair to the baby to be with an addict.

That said, I feel like the disease of addiction is just far too ugly to just treat with jail and it's not going to be successful on a variety of levels.     I don't know the answer of how to treat a drug addicted woman through pregnancy but I don't think that incarceration is the answer.   

In my experience (as a former foster care worker) they won't take the baby unless the baby tests positive and they need a reason to test the baby.  

Mom will usually have the opportunity to get the baby back and to this end will be given a list of things she has to do. In an addiction case those will usually consist of things like participating in a treatment program, regular attendance at AA or NA meetings, and mandatory drug testing. Plus there may be other things that are not specific to drug use.  

Criminal proceedings in a removal case are pretty rare (again in my experience) and when I have seen them it is usually for things like severe physical abuse or sexual abuse.  

doeydo

I don't think pregnant women should be controlled in any way.  This sets a precedent that really rubs me the wrong way.  

ashley8918

I think it's disgusting. 

As PPs have said, nobody wants to see a baby born addicted to drugs. It's terrible. But all this does is ensure that pregnant women who use do not seek out prenatal care. As damaging as drugs are to a fetus, when that is combined with lack of prenatal care, they have NO chance.

WildMagelet

mysticl said:

ohannabelle said:

While I agree with the idea that inspired it- that no child should have drug use and addiction forced upon them by a parent, which is a heinous, horrible wrong- it is a useless law, that will accomplish nothing, will probably keep addicts from seeking medical attention, and a dangerous law. Because where will this lead? To what extent can "healthy" practices be forced on pregnant women?And yes:

slothiegal said:

I truly believe that the people who come up with these laws action have never been around/known/cared for/worked with a drug addict before.

Exactly this. There is no law that can keep an addict from using. If you threatened them with the death penalty, a junkie wouldn't care. Even in prison, junkies find ways to get drugs. 

ETA: knot eating paragraphs and weirdass formatting.

Like this case. They went into her home, forced her into the hospital, and cut her open against her will.  http://www.leagle.com/decision/1999131366FSupp2d1247_11197 Holy shit that is scary as all hell.

LizM61409

mysticl said:

ohannabelle said:

While I agree with the idea that inspired it- that no child should have drug use and addiction forced upon them by a parent, which is a heinous, horrible wrong- it is a useless law, that will accomplish nothing, will probably keep addicts from seeking medical attention, and a dangerous law. Because where will this lead? To what extent can "healthy" practices be forced on pregnant women?And yes:

slothiegal said:

I truly believe that the people who come up with these laws action have never been around/known/cared for/worked with a drug addict before.

Exactly this. There is no law that can keep an addict from using. If you threatened them with the death penalty, a junkie wouldn't care. Even in prison, junkies find ways to get drugs. 

ETA: knot eating paragraphs and weirdass formatting.

Like this case. They went into her home, forced her into the hospital, and cut her open against her will.  http://www.leagle.com/decision/1999131366FSupp2d1247_11197 Okay I just looked at the case.... this woman was REALLY F***ING STUPID to attempt a vbac at home with a prior classical incision on the uterus- her risk of uterine rupture was 10% (as compared to ~0.5% risk with a low transverse incision on the uterus). It would have been malpractice NOT to schedule her repeat c-section at 37wks (we do them earlier with a history of that type of incision b/c the risk of rupture increases in the last weeks of pregnancy). It would have been malpractice to NOT recommend c-section when she showed up to the hospital requesting an IV.

That being said, you can't force surgery upon a competent adult who refuses. I would have made her sign a million forms stating she understood the risk of fetal/neonatal death or permanent neurological impairment. But then they're in florida (HORRIBLE malpractice situation for docs, that's why nobody does vbacs there) so if they let her go and then something bad happened to baby they probably would have gotten sued anyways.

offensivekitten2

lolo883 said:

Just coming to congratulate @offensivekitten2 - just saw your new siggie! Yay! Congrats!

Thanks! It's still weird and new to me, and why I've been AWOL for a few weeks :P.  

Sugargirl1019

LizM61409 said:

mysticl said:

ohannabelle said:

While I agree with the idea that inspired it- that no child should have drug use and addiction forced upon them by a parent, which is a heinous, horrible wrong- it is a useless law, that will accomplish nothing, will probably keep addicts from seeking medical attention, and a dangerous law. Because where will this lead? To what extent can "healthy" practices be forced on pregnant women?And yes:

slothiegal said:

I truly believe that the people who come up with these laws action have never been around/known/cared for/worked with a drug addict before.

Exactly this. There is no law that can keep an addict from using. If you threatened them with the death penalty, a junkie wouldn't care. Even in prison, junkies find ways to get drugs. 

ETA: knot eating paragraphs and weirdass formatting.

Like this case. They went into her home, forced her into the hospital, and cut her open against her will.  http://www.leagle.com/decision/1999131366FSupp2d1247_11197


Okay I just looked at the case.... this woman was REALLY F***ING STUPID to attempt a vbac at home with a prior classical incision on the uterus- her risk of uterine rupture was 10% (as compared to ~0.5% risk with a low transverse incision on the uterus). It would have been malpractice NOT to schedule her repeat c-section at 37wks (we do them earlier with a history of that type of incision b/c the risk of rupture increases in the last weeks of pregnancy). It would have been malpractice to NOT recommend c-section when she showed up to the hospital requesting an IV.

That being said, you can't force surgery upon a competent adult who refuses. I would have made her sign a million forms stating she understood the risk of fetal/neonatal death or permanent neurological impairment. But then they're in florida (HORRIBLE malpractice situation for docs, that's why nobody does vbacs there) so if they let her go and then something bad happened to baby they probably would have gotten sued anyways.

Bah I'm of the mind that if someone wants to make a stupid decision and dies because of it, then that's natures way of weeding out the idiots. They should not have sent an ambulance after her. If she ruptured she dies. Her decision, her consequences. Why does everybody need to get in everyone else's business.

theartistformerlyknownas

offensivekitten2 said:

lolo883 said:

Just coming to congratulate @offensivekitten2 - just saw your new siggie! Yay! Congrats!

Thanks! It's still weird and new to me, and why I've been AWOL for a few weeks :P.  

I can only imagine! I can see myself sitting there immobilized for about a month like if I move I might break it.

K sorry to threadjack. Carry on.

chibiyui

Sugargirl1019 said:

LizM61409 said:

mysticl said:

ohannabelle said:

While I agree with the idea that inspired it- that no child should have drug use and addiction forced upon them by a parent, which is a heinous, horrible wrong- it is a useless law, that will accomplish nothing, will probably keep addicts from seeking medical attention, and a dangerous law. Because where will this lead? To what extent can "healthy" practices be forced on pregnant women?And yes:

slothiegal said:

I truly believe that the people who come up with these laws action have never been around/known/cared for/worked with a drug addict before.

Exactly this. There is no law that can keep an addict from using. If you threatened them with the death penalty, a junkie wouldn't care. Even in prison, junkies find ways to get drugs. 

ETA: knot eating paragraphs and weirdass formatting.

Like this case. They went into her home, forced her into the hospital, and cut her open against her will.  http://www.leagle.com/decision/1999131366FSupp2d1247_11197


Okay I just looked at the case.... this woman was REALLY F***ING STUPID to attempt a vbac at home with a prior classical incision on the uterus- her risk of uterine rupture was 10% (as compared to ~0.5% risk with a low transverse incision on the uterus). It would have been malpractice NOT to schedule her repeat c-section at 37wks (we do them earlier with a history of that type of incision b/c the risk of rupture increases in the last weeks of pregnancy). It would have been malpractice to NOT recommend c-section when she showed up to the hospital requesting an IV.

That being said, you can't force surgery upon a competent adult who refuses. I would have made her sign a million forms stating she understood the risk of fetal/neonatal death or permanent neurological impairment. But then they're in florida (HORRIBLE malpractice situation for docs, that's why nobody does vbacs there) so if they let her go and then something bad happened to baby they probably would have gotten sued anyways.

Bah I'm of the mind that if someone wants to make a stupid decision and dies because of it, then that's natures way of weeding out the idiots. They should not have sent an ambulance after her. If she ruptured she dies. Her decision, her consequences. Why does everybody need to get in everyone else's business.



You mean like passing laws making it illegal to be addicted to drugs while pregnant?

Gerbertmcway

ashley8918 said:

I think it's disgusting. 

As PPs have said, nobody wants to see a baby born addicted to drugs. It's terrible. But all this does is ensure that pregnant women who use do not seek out prenatal care. As damaging as drugs are to a fetus, when that is combined with lack of prenatal care, they have NO chance.

Because pregnant mothers who choose to do drugs usually give a giant fuck about prenatal care, right? Because they are so concerned with the health of their unborn child. What I think is terrible is that people think pregnant women should have the RIGHT to cause their children to be born addicted to drugs. Of course this law isn't going to fix everything, if anything, but I think some people have a really shitty attitude about women's rights vs children's rights to not be born addicted to drugs.

Gerbertmcway

chibiyui said:

mysticl said:

ohannabelle said:

While I agree with the idea that inspired it- that no child should have drug use and addiction forced upon them by a parent, which is a heinous, horrible wrong- it is a useless law, that will accomplish nothing, will probably keep addicts from seeking medical attention, and a dangerous law. Because where will this lead? To what extent can "healthy" practices be forced on pregnant women?And yes:

slothiegal said:

I truly believe that the people who come up with these laws action have never been around/known/cared for/worked with a drug addict before.

Exactly this. There is no law that can keep an addict from using. If you threatened them with the death penalty, a junkie wouldn't care. Even in prison, junkies find ways to get drugs. 

ETA: knot eating paragraphs and weirdass formatting.

Like this case. They went into her home, forced her into the hospital, and cut her open against her will.  http://www.leagle.com/decision/1999131366FSupp2d1247_11197

Okay I just looked at the case.... this woman was REALLY F***ING STUPID to attempt a vbac at home with a prior classical incision on the uterus- her risk of uterine rupture was 10% (as compared to ~0.5% risk with a low transverse incision on the uterus). It would have been malpractice NOT to schedule her repeat c-section at 37wks (we do them earlier with a history of that type of incision b/c the risk of rupture increases in the last weeks of pregnancy). It would have been malpractice to NOT recommend c-section when she showed up to the hospital requesting an IV.

That being said, you can't force surgery upon a competent adult who refuses. I would have made her sign a million forms stating she understood the risk of fetal/neonatal death or permanent neurological impairment. But then they're in florida (HORRIBLE malpractice situation for docs, that's why nobody does vbacs there) so if they let her go and then something bad happened to baby they probably would have gotten sued anyways.

Bah I'm of the mind that if someone wants to make a stupid decision and dies because of it, then that's natures way of weeding out the idiots. They should not have sent an ambulance after her. If she ruptured she dies. Her decision, her consequences. Why does everybody need to get in everyone else's business. You mean like passing laws making it illegal to be addicted to drugs while pregnant?
No, because that isn't her decision, her consequences. It's her decision, someone else's consequences.

chibiyui

Gerbertmcway said:

chibiyui said:

Sugargirl1019 said:

LizM61409 said:

mysticl said:

ohannabelle said:

While I agree with the idea that inspired it- that no child should have drug use and addiction forced upon them by a parent, which is a heinous, horrible wrong- it is a useless law, that will accomplish nothing, will probably keep addicts from seeking medical attention, and a dangerous law. Because where will this lead? To what extent can "healthy" practices be forced on pregnant women?And yes:

slothiegal said:

I truly believe that the people who come up with these laws action have never been around/known/cared for/worked with a drug addict before.

Exactly this. There is no law that can keep an addict from using. If you threatened them with the death penalty, a junkie wouldn't care. Even in prison, junkies find ways to get drugs. 

ETA: knot eating paragraphs and weirdass formatting.

Like this case. They went into her home, forced her into the hospital, and cut her open against her will.  http://www.leagle.com/decision/1999131366FSupp2d1247_11197

Okay I just looked at the case.... this woman was REALLY F***ING STUPID to attempt a vbac at home with a prior classical incision on the uterus- her risk of uterine rupture was 10% (as compared to ~0.5% risk with a low transverse incision on the uterus). It would have been malpractice NOT to schedule her repeat c-section at 37wks (we do them earlier with a history of that type of incision b/c the risk of rupture increases in the last weeks of pregnancy). It would have been malpractice to NOT recommend c-section when she showed up to the hospital requesting an IV.

That being said, you can't force surgery upon a competent adult who refuses. I would have made her sign a million forms stating she understood the risk of fetal/neonatal death or permanent neurological impairment. But then they're in florida (HORRIBLE malpractice situation for docs, that's why nobody does vbacs there) so if they let her go and then something bad happened to baby they probably would have gotten sued anyways.

Bah I'm of the mind that if someone wants to make a stupid decision and dies because of it, then that's natures way of weeding out the idiots. They should not have sent an ambulance after her. If she ruptured she dies. Her decision, her consequences. Why does everybody need to get in everyone else's business.



You mean like passing laws making it illegal to be addicted to drugs while pregnant?





No, because that isn't her decision, her consequences. It's her decision, someone else's consequences.

I'd argue that a child's mother dieing in child birth is in fact a consequence for the child.

offensivekitten2

Holy shit, being kidnapped and cut open while you watch sounds like a horror movie.  Why the hell is our nation even thinking about laws allowing that??

VulgarGirl

Gerbertmcway said:

ashley8918 said:

I think it's disgusting. 

As PPs have said, nobody wants to see a baby born addicted to drugs. It's terrible. But all this does is ensure that pregnant women who use do not seek out prenatal care. As damaging as drugs are to a fetus, when that is combined with lack of prenatal care, they have NO chance.

Because pregnant mothers who choose to do drugs usually give a giant fuck about prenatal care, right? Because they are so concerned with the health of their unborn child. What I think is terrible is that people think pregnant women should have the RIGHT to cause their children to be born addicted to drugs. Of course this law isn't going to fix everything, if anything, but I think some people have a really shitty attitude about women's rights vs children's rights to not be born addicted to drugs.

They might. An addiction isn't just waking up one day and going "Ya know what sounds good with my Fruit Loops? Meth. I think I'll do some meth today, who cares that I'm pregnant, I wanna get some meth, sounds tasty", that's not what pregnant women with a drug addiction are thinking. 

It's an uncontrollable urge. They might want to control it. They might think they have it under control. But the addiction is a disease. Like cancer. It has taken over their bodies, their minds, it controls their every waking thought. They might want to get prenatal care, the might earnestly want their child, but they can't just put down the drugs because that isn't how a drug addiction works. 

Read the story I posted above. That woman wanted children, she wanted to be a mom, but her addiction has so consumed her life, she had one child die and one child taken by the state, and she's still using. She uses the same way you or I breathe. We do it because we have to live. For her, her drug addiction feels the same way.  

The law is a slippery slope. Lunch meat isn't safe during pregnancy. Sushi, caffeine, hot dogs I think, all on the things to avoid during pregnancy. All carry risks to the fetus. Would you be ok if we start jailing pregnant women for having a cup coffee? Eating Subway for lunch? Getting sushi with the girls? They do carry possible risks to the unborn child. 

VulgarGirl

offensivekitten2 said:

Holy shit, being kidnapped and cut open while you watch sounds like a horror movie.  Why the hell is our nation even thinking about laws allowing that??

DA BABIES!!! Women is 'possed to have da babies and we gotta protect da babies. Even at the cost of the woman's emotional/physical safety or even her wants because da babies. 

Also congrats on your impending baby!

mysticl

LizM61409 said:

mysticl said:

ohannabelle said:

While I agree with the idea that inspired it- that no child should have drug use and addiction forced upon them by a parent, which is a heinous, horrible wrong- it is a useless law, that will accomplish nothing, will probably keep addicts from seeking medical attention, and a dangerous law. Because where will this lead? To what extent can "healthy" practices be forced on pregnant women?And yes:

slothiegal said:

I truly believe that the people who come up with these laws action have never been around/known/cared for/worked with a drug addict before.

Exactly this. There is no law that can keep an addict from using. If you threatened them with the death penalty, a junkie wouldn't care. Even in prison, junkies find ways to get drugs. 

ETA: knot eating paragraphs and weirdass formatting.

Like this case. They went into her home, forced her into the hospital, and cut her open against her will.  http://www.leagle.com/decision/1999131366FSupp2d1247_11197

Okay I just looked at the case.... this woman was REALLY F***ING STUPID to attempt a vbac at home with a prior classical incision on the uterus- her risk of uterine rupture was 10% (as compared to ~0.5% risk with a low transverse incision on the uterus). It would have been malpractice NOT to schedule her repeat c-section at 37wks (we do them earlier with a history of that type of incision b/c the risk of rupture increases in the last weeks of pregnancy). It would have been malpractice to NOT recommend c-section when she showed up to the hospital requesting an IV.

That being said, you can't force surgery upon a competent adult who refuses. I would have made her sign a million forms stating she understood the risk of fetal/neonatal death or permanent neurological impairment. But then they're in florida (HORRIBLE malpractice situation for docs, that's why nobody does vbacs there) so if they let her go and then something bad happened to baby they probably would have gotten sued anyways.

That is a false statement.  According the the ICAN group I follow on fb only one hospital in Jacksonville has a total VBAC ban.  I was planning to VBAC in Jacksonville until the Navy decided to move us.  When I told them I wanted a VBAC the responses were "good" and "I don't know why some hospitals don't allow them".  I was traveling to FL from GA for prenatal care because my local hospital does have a VBAC ban.