First Woman arrested for drug use during pregnancy

[VaSportsMom]

I have a niece that was born addicted to meth. I've never felt as helpless or as angry as I did watching that tiny baby go through withdrawals. Now her mother has given birth to a second child that is suffering just as AJ did. I wish like hell that someone had locked their mother up before she was allowed to do it again. How many babies have to suffer before she gets help?

I don't know that this law is the answer because I do fear that it will lead to more women refusing to seek prenatal care and appropriate help during labor but doing nothing isn't the answer either.

[ADoyle90815]

I was a foster mom for more than a decade and most of my kids were newborns who were going through withdrawals and were very sick from complications. I adopted three of those babies and they now range in age from early teens to preschool aged. Two of them will never be able to live alone or support themselves. One might be able to. Everyone seems to focus on how the drugs affect the babies, but the struggle doesn't end in childhood. Adults made decisions to do things that directly disabled these children for life. It is a form of child abuse and has caused these kids to become adults who will rely on society to care for them throughout their lives.

On the other hand, arresting these women further drains society's resources without any benefit to anyone. They need treatment and support, two things they will not find in jail.

There is this general idea that we must vilify these women, but it is possible to ackowledge that what they did to these kids is horrible and abusive* while still respecting and valuing them as humans who need our love and support more than anything else.

To many people "drug babies" are a sort of abstract concept, but I tell you that if we don't help these women stop creating these kids who can not function as adults WE are the ones further hurting society. WE are a huge part of the problem and we really need to pull our heads out of our arses and find the compassion that is necessary to fix this mess.

*The kids need us to ackowledge that what happened to them before they were born causes their struggles, but society's tendency to vilify the women that gave them life does NOT help their healing process.

I agree that arresting pregnant addicts is the wrong thing, as it's going to end up with those women not getting prenatal care, and babies being left in trash cans, and at designated safe haven zones. Most women who find out they're pregnant stop doing things that would harm the fetus, or even go as far as to abstain from certain things when they're trying to get pregnant. For an addict, quitting is not easy at all, even if the person really wants to quit.

I knew someone who adopted a drug baby, and as that child grew, he still had disabilities including mental illness so severe, that the mom had to send him to a school out of state that specialized in handling dangerous children for her and the child's safety. That's how bad the mental illness that was a result of being born addicted to drugs, this child was a danger to himself and his mom as the husband died of cancer. This child is now a legal adult, and I lost track of what happened, but with such severe mental illness, the outcome isn't good.

[DGayle]

I have cousins who are drug kids. I'm closer to 1 of them (actually cousin's daughter but I call her cousin), and it's heartbreaking to watch her hate on herself because of what she can't do because of the drugs her mom was doing. She can't focus long enough to do much homework, which kills her because she knows hot to do math, but then gets F's. She can't focus more than maybe 5 minutes at a time, even with medications, and just passing her because she knows stuff won't help in any meaningful way. The adults in the family are already talking about how my grandparents (who are raising her, they're her great-grandparents) may have to apply her for disability because it doesn't look likely she'll ever be able to work since she can't stay on task long enough. She can't play sports because her mind wander. She loves soccer, but can't do it.

Her mom chose to keep the pregnancy, then chose to do drugs, and a 13-year-old is paying the price for it. It's easy to say "a fetus shouldn't have rights," but you need to remember that that fetus will become a full-fledged human being with rights, and that fetus is probably going to have a lot of problems, some of them lifelong.

This is different than abortion. That's whether or not to have a baby, and the baby is no worse off for being aborted. But when you're keeping the baby and doing things you know are dangerous to the baby and won't accept help (that does need to be considered, and we need to make drug treatment more readily available, especially for pregnant women, and my cousin's 16-year-old mom had access since our grandparents were willing and able to pay), then you are directly responsible for making a baby that will very likely be harmed for life and even disabled. You can say it's unfair to require drug treatment if a woman decides to keep a baby, but once the choice to keep is made, then that fetus should be seen as a person for that time since that fetus will most likely be born, and babies born after a gestation of drugs will have medical problems.

[Mama Mia]

Slightly off-topic -- but D.Gayle, your cousins daughter IS your cousin. She would be your first cousin once removed. She and your daughters are second cousins :)

What really bothers me about this is that it is actually MORE dangerous to the fetus for heroin addicts to quit cold turkey during pregnancy. It is much more likely to result in loss of the baby than continuing to use. That is why most women who seek treatment will be placed on methadone.

Also anything that causes the mother to avoid getting prenatal care - and even more importantly, resources like food, is going to increase the risk of long term problems. It's really, really difficult to separate out the impacts of different substances -- because if someone is living an under the radar drug addict lifestyle they are also likely to be drinking, and smoking like a chimney and surviving on Cheetos and soda. And, more frequently than average, addicts also have underlying issues of ADHD, learning disabilities and bi-polar disorder -- all of which have a tendency to be passed down to their children. So it's a big complicated mess.

The ONLY advantage to arresting someone who was using would be if they sent them to treatment. But I think the disadvantages far outweigh the advantAges, because most addicts would just stay completely under the radar instead of take the risk.

[Toothfairy]

No, actually it will deter women from seeking ANY medical help at all during their pregnancies.

But hey, it's not like the woman's life matters anyway other than as an incubator.

Can you please tell this to the people thinking this is the answer. :clap:

[Toothfairy]

Again this is stupid. Drug addiction is real. A person on drugs needs help. Not be put in jail. It's not going to stop them from using or going back to drugs. And what about the child? Just because a drug addict has their child taken away from them does it really help the situation? No. There needs to be more programs to help pregnant women. Get them counseling, detox, help them.

[eh02]

Her mom chose to keep the pregnancy, then chose to do drugs, and a 13-year-old is paying the price for it. It's easy to say "a fetus shouldn't have rights," but you need to remember that that fetus will become a full-fledged human being with rights, and that fetus is probably going to have a lot of problems, some of them lifelong.

This is different than abortion. That's whether or not to have a baby, and the baby is no worse off for being aborted. But when you're keeping the baby and doing things you know are dangerous to the baby and won't accept help (that does need to be considered, and we need to make drug treatment more readily available, especially for pregnant women, and my cousin's 16-year-old mom had access since our grandparents were willing and able to pay), then you are directly responsible for making a baby that will very likely be harmed for life and even disabled. You can say it's unfair to require drug treatment if a woman decides to keep a baby, but once the choice to keep is made, then that fetus should be seen as a person for that time since that fetus will most likely be born, and babies born after a gestation of drugs will have medical problems.

I understand your point here - but I think the problem with it is that it's based on a moral concept rather than practical. Everyone agrees that a pregnant woman should not use drugs. There is no question there. I think everyone overwhelmingly would support the idea that once a woman has chosen to have a child, we would all like for her to be as healthy as possible so that child has a chance at health itself. We all know it is heartbreaking and utterly unfair when a child (and then adult) has to deal with health, developmental, mental, emotional issues because of their parents' mistakes. And I think we could all agree that it is selfish to make choices in pregnancy that harm your future child, even if we can acknowledge how incredibly difficult it is to stop using highly addictive drugs. Willpower is not always enough.

The problem is that policies like this overwhelmingly result in women who already have extremely high-risk pregnancies (due to recent or current drug problems) avoiding medical care at all costs. They are afraid to even seek treatment to GET OFF drugs, because the initial positive test could put them in prison. There is pretty much NO WAY for them to win. So if we truly are looking out for the health of the fetus, the best possible thing to do would be to create intensive, supportive programs for drug addicted mothers, to completely exhaust all resources available to attempt to get her to not use drugs without fear that entering that program will result in her being put in prison, with her child taken away from her.

I see it as similar to the war on drugs in general. Everyone is pretty much in agreement that the world would be a better place without, say, heroin. We can all agree that something should be done to reduce heroin usage and availability. So we say heroin is illegal. And great! Now people will stop using heroin! And of course, that is not how things end up working out. The policy doesn't actually end up having the real-world positive outcomes that were intended.

[DGayle]

EH, I don't think anyone's saying let's just start tossing women in prison. It seems that the general agreement, at least among those who think something should be done, is to require them to get drug treatment, even if that means detaining in a hospital because they refuse. Unless I overlooked it, I don't think anyone really favors slapping cuffs and an orange jumpsuit on anyone right out the gate.

[DGayle]

MM, I can never understand how cousin stuff works, like removed, or degrees. What is a 2nd cousin?

[RosyDaisy]

These laws are nothing more than a means to push a pro-life agenda and personhood laws.

[LeatherCouch]

EH, I don't think anyone's saying let's just start tossing women in prison. It seems that the general agreement, at least among those who think something should be done, is to require them to get drug treatment, even if that means detaining in a hospital because they refuse. Unless I overlooked it, I don't think anyone really favors slapping cuffs and an orange jumpsuit on anyone right out the gate.

The problem is that, at least in my area, there are not nearly enough rehabs for everyone who currently wants treatment, much less for those who need it.

We waste so much money on punishment that there just isn't any for treatment. Until we stop treating drug addicts like trash and start treating them like humans that will never change.

[Grimalkin]

The problem with rehab is that it's not all that effective. There is not a huge success rate and if you were to talk to a group in rehab and ask how many of you have been in rehab before, you will likely have a majority of them raise their hands. Insurance is covering less and less of rehab stays now. I often feel rehab is more for the families to get a break than for the addicts. Worried parents know their kid is safe for a bit, spouses and kids get a break. Addicts may be sick damaged people, you can say the same about many criminals. People who are far into their addiction have to find the money to keep t up somewhere. If they are heroin addicts or meth addicts I doubt it will be a 9-5 job. Usually if they have family they start by manipulating their family members, when the parents stop giving them money the approach grandparents, and kindly aunts and uncles. when that stops working they steal, or sell themselves or sell drugs themselves, or start trying to get others addicted so the dealer will have more customers. The loved ones go through hell. I am not vilifying anyone just saying what happens and to be honest I am giving the Disney version.

I think most addicts have windows of time to get sober, the further they get into their addiction the fewer the windows are. There are choices all along the way. When a person has had some sober time under their belt and they choose to pack up their babies in the car and drive 30 miles from the subarbs to the city to their dealer, leave the kids in the car alone in a bad neighborhood while they get the drugs, that was completely intentional and voluntary at every step of the way. She might not be able to stop herself during the spree and whatever happens in the next few weeks, but she chose to get in her car. That is how this works.

[LeatherCouch]

I understand that rehab doesn't often work the first or fourth time, but if a woman who is pregnant can get into a rehab and get clean, or even clean-ish, while gestating it can lessen the neurological and organ damage for the kid.

The only successfully rehabbed mothers we worked with as foster parents were lucky enough to get beds in a long term rehab facility that allowed them to bring their kids. They had to get 30-60 days of treatment while I kept their kids and brought them for visits, and then if all was going well their kids moved into the rehab facility with them. They were there for 2 years, and if there was a lapse in sobriety the kids came back to me while mom got herself back on track and then they moved back in. The facility supported them while they learned to parent and work and get clean under compassionate supervision.

They were there long enough to create a healthier family and support group for themselves. They stayed clean, and I'm still in contact with them many years later. One even went to school and became a drug counselor. This is how it should work for everyone.

[Grimalkin]

It is how it should work. I am guessing they went there because they wanted too? I may have missed it in this story but was the woman seeking help to get sober or just prenatal care? Out of curiosity how many women did you do this for and how many of them stayed sober as far as you know six months or more after leaving the facility. Did any of them go to halfway houses after? I am always happy to hear of successes in these situations.

[LeatherCouch]

It is how it should work. I am guessing they went there because they wanted too? I may have missed it in this story but was the woman seeking help to get sober or just prenatal care? Out of curiosity how many women did you do this for and how many of them stayed sober as far as you know six months or more after leaving the facility. Did any of them go to halfway houses after? I am always happy to hear of successes in these situations.

It was 2 moms that got beds in these facilities (there is 2 of these rehabs in state) and they were both court ordered to go. Both were residents for the full 2 years and both remain sober and have custody of their children to this day. One has been out of the rehab for 11 years and the other for 8 years. The focus of these rehabs was sobriety, but also long term support. Prenatal, pediatric and medical care was provided for everyone. The rehab facility was a two year program, and thus acted as a half way house also.

All of the parents I worked with were court orderd to rehab as a matter of course, but only 4 ended up getting spots in rehabs due to more clients than openings. 2 left early and gave up parental rights, but they were both in out patient treatment and still living in the same environment they were in before rehab.

[Chowder Head]

MM, I can never understand how cousin stuff works, like removed, or degrees. What is a 2nd cousin?

As I understand it ,your first cousin's kid is your second cousin. Your second cousin's kid is your third cousin. A parent's first cousin is your second cousin and so on and so fourth, I have no idea how once removed or stuff like works.

Sorry about the hijack but back to regular schedule thoughts. When you in act laws like this, who decided which drugs or even medicine is illegal and an arrest able offense? Alcohol is legal but we all know it harms a fetus. Plus there is a lot of over the counter, and prescribed drug that might be iffy.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I have cousins who are drug kids. I'm closer to 1 of them (actually cousin's daughter but I call her cousin), and it's heartbreaking to watch her hate on herself because of what she can't do because of the drugs her mom was doing. She can't focus long enough to do much homework, which kills her because she knows hot to do math, but then gets F's. She can't focus more than maybe 5 minutes at a time, even with medications, and just passing her because she knows stuff won't help in any meaningful way. The adults in the family are already talking about how my grandparents (who are raising her, they're her great-grandparents) may have to apply her for disability because it doesn't look likely she'll ever be able to work since she can't stay on task long enough. She can't play sports because her mind wander. She loves soccer, but can't do it.

Her mom chose to keep the pregnancy, then chose to do drugs, and a 13-year-old is paying the price for it. It's easy to say "a fetus shouldn't have rights," but you need to remember that that fetus will become a full-fledged human being with rights, and that fetus is probably going to have a lot of problems, some of them lifelong.

This is different than abortion. That's whether or not to have a baby, and the baby is no worse off for being aborted. But when you're keeping the baby and doing things you know are dangerous to the baby and won't accept help (that does need to be considered, and we need to make drug treatment more readily available, especially for pregnant women, and my cousin's 16-year-old mom had access since our grandparents were willing and able to pay), then you are directly responsible for making a baby that will very likely be harmed for life and even disabled. You can say it's unfair to require drug treatment if a woman decides to keep a baby, but once the choice to keep is made, then that fetus should be seen as a person for that time since that fetus will most likely be born, and babies born after a gestation of drugs will have medical problems.

There is no doubt that pregnant women who are addicted can do things that really fuck up their children.

Dealing with the problem through punitive legal measures, though, simply does not help the outcome.

There is lots of public education. People know that drugs and alcohol are not good for fetuses.

In many cases, though, the alcohol can actually cause more lasting damage that the drugs, and alcohol is legal. Much of the really serious damage occurs very early in the pregnancy, before a decision is made about termination or even before a woman is aware that she is pregnant. http://embryo.asu.edu/pages/development ... th-defects If a woman is an addict and her life is generally unstable, she may not exactly be tracking her cycle and it is quite possible that she would continue to use without knowing that she was pregnant during the entire 8 week embryonic phase.

[Mama Mia]

Here's a link to how cousins work :) basically your first cousin is your parents siblings child. Let's call her Mary. Mary has a baby, Sarah. Sarah is your first cousin once removed. Sarah has a baby, Mark. Mark is your first cousin twice removed. You have a baby, Lori. Lori and Sarah are second cousins.

http://www.genealogy.com/16_cousn.html

As to treatment and addicted mothers -- the very best residential treatment long term success rates seem to be around 40% tops. If they tell you higher they are almost certainly creaming the crop and finagling the statistics. The best ones for mothers are going to have the kids living there, if at all possible. At least part time. And will focus just as heavily on parenting and practical issues as on recovery. And, THE most important, in my experience, will have a step down program where the family goes from full-time living in treatment, to a sober living house, to living fully independently. And even then will have tons of follow-up support.

Otherwise, it's too often as Grimalkin described -- it's a break for the family, but not much else. Especially when their are young children involved.

[DGayle]

Even if relative sobriety can be achieved during the course of a pregnancy, that is a step in the right direction. No one is talking about personhood to the point of banning abortions, but instead assigning personhood to an unborn baby a woman has decided to keep, which is why killing Laci Peterson's murder counts for 2 murders instead of 1.

This protects women who have chosen to keep their babies. If a man doesn't want his ex to have his baby and he stabs her stomach, that's assault on her and murder of the baby. Saying no, mere extension of her body, it's only assault and he'll be out in 2-4. If a woman chooses to keep, then why should anyone else intentionally harming the baby be a crime, but her doing something intentionally harmful is wrong? We're not talking parental decisions like feeding kids McDonald's instead of organic from scratch. It's more like feeding your kids that chlorine pill and calling it acceptable medical care.

Maybe if we got out of the midset that there is never a time when an unborn baby has rights and so let's keep the status quo, then maybe we could argue better for diverting funds from the criminal system to treatment centers and halfways houses to help women get more sober, even if it's just for the duration of pregnancy. We shouldn't twiddle our thumbs and say, "Aw, well that's too bad," when a baby is born permanently disabled because we allow women who choose to keep their babies to do what would amount to child abuse to the level of immediate removal afterward.

No, rehab isn't bulletproof, and it doesn't always work long-term, but that doesn't mean we should try, and just consider the permanently harm to the babies that they'll live with forever to just be a price to pay. Ask any drug-baby if they are okay with their lifelong disabilities because it meant their birthmoms were free to do what they wanted, or it they'd rather someone have done something.

Also as far as getting arrested for seeking help, regardless of sex or gender or pregnancy status, no one should EVER be slapped in cuffs because they went somewhere, like a police station, strung out of their minds, to ask for help because they don't know what to do, can't stay clean on their own, and oh god can someone help make the monsters go away. THAT is deterring people from getting help more than anything. I can't believe people do get arrested for being on drugs when they ask for help to break the addiction and try to get sober. Those people should be praised and given help, not jail.

[Rebelwife]

As I understand it ,your first cousin's kid is your second cousin. Your second cousin's kid is your third cousin. A parent's first cousin is your second cousin and so on and so fourth, I have no idea how once removed or stuff like works.

Sorry about the hijack but back to regular schedule thoughts. When you in act laws like this, who decided which drugs or even medicine is illegal and an arrest able offense? Alcohol is legal but we all know it harms a fetus. Plus there is a lot of over the counter, and prescribed drug that might be iffy.

That's not quite right. Think of it like a ladder - people of the same generation are on the same rung of the ladder. Say two people (A and B) are first cousins - their parents are siblings. If they each have a child, those children are second cousins. If those second cousins each have children, those children are third cousins.

The "removes" work between generations. Like the example above, A and B are cousins. If A has a child, that child and B are "first cousins, once removed" because they are one generation apart. If A's child has a child (A's grandchild), then that grandchild and B are "first cousins, twice removed" - still first cousins because the original relationship is between A and B.* Does that help at all? :think:

I am from a huge extended southern family, so knowing this stuff is actually quite useful. My kids are very good friends with their third cousins and we see them all the time.

*To get really confusing, if A and B both had kids (lets call them X and Y), who are second cousins, then the relationship between X and Y's child would be "second cousins, one removed" and the relationship between X and Y's grandchild would be "second cousins, twice removed." It can make your head explode after awhile. My daughter was very excited to learn that she is related to Abraham Lincoln. His mother and my many-times great grandmother were sisters. I don't think her classmates were nearly as impressed when she told them that he was her "first cousin, eight times removed." :lol:

[Grimalkin]

Even if relative sobriety can be achieved during the course of a pregnancy, that is a step in the right direction. No one is talking about personhood to the point of banning abortions, but instead assigning personhood to an unborn baby a woman has decided to keep, which is why killing Laci Peterson's murder counts for 2 murders instead of 1.

This protects women who have chosen to keep their babies. If a man doesn't want his ex to have his baby and he stabs her stomach, that's assault on her and murder of the baby. Saying no, mere extension of her body, it's only assault and he'll be out in 2-4. If a woman chooses to keep, then why should anyone else intentionally harming the baby be a crime, but her doing something intentionally harmful is wrong? We're not talking parental decisions like feeding kids McDonald's instead of organic from scratch. It's more like feeding your kids that chlorine pill and calling it acceptable medical care.

Maybe if we got out of the midset that there is never a time when an unborn baby has rights and so let's keep the status quo, then maybe we could argue better for diverting funds from the criminal system to treatment centers and halfways houses to help women get more sober, even if it's just for the duration of pregnancy. We shouldn't twiddle our thumbs and say, "Aw, well that's too bad," when a baby is born permanently disabled because we allow women who choose to keep their babies to do what would amount to child abuse to the level of immediate removal afterward.

No, rehab isn't bulletproof, and it doesn't always work long-term, but that doesn't mean we should try, and just consider the permanently harm to the babies that they'll live with forever to just be a price to pay. Ask any drug-baby if they are okay with their lifelong disabilities because it meant their birthmoms were free to do what they wanted, or it they'd rather someone have done something.

Also as far as getting arrested for seeking help, regardless of sex or gender or pregnancy status, no one should EVER be slapped in cuffs because they went somewhere, like a police station, strung out of their minds, to ask for help because they don't know what to do, can't stay clean on their own, and oh god can someone help make the monsters go away. THAT is deterring people from getting help more than anything. I can't believe people do get arrested for being on drugs when they ask for help to break the addiction and try to get sober. Those people should be praised and given help, not jail.

I missed this was she seeking help for her addiction? I thought she was just getting prenatal care.

[RosyDaisy]

That's not quite right. Think of it like a ladder - people of the same generation are on the same rung of the ladder. Say two people (A and B) are first cousins - their parents are siblings. If they each have a child, those children are second cousins. If those second cousins each have children, those children are third cousins.

The "removes" work between generations. Like the example above, A and B are cousins. If A has a child, that child and B are "first cousins, once removed" because they are one generation apart. If A's child has a child (A's grandchild), then that grandchild and B are "first cousins, twice removed" - still first cousins because the original relationship is between A and B.* Does that help at all? :think:

I am from a huge extended southern family, so knowing this stuff is actually quite useful. My kids are very good friends with their third cousins and we see them all the time.

*To get really confusing, if A and B both had kids (lets call them X and Y), who are second cousins, then the relationship between X and Y's child would be "second cousins, one removed" and the relationship between X and Y's grandchild would be "second cousins, twice removed." It can make your head explode after awhile. My daughter was very excited to learn that she is related to Abraham Lincoln. His mother and my many-times great grandmother were sisters. I don't think her classmates were nearly as impressed when she told them that he was her "first cousin, eight times removed." :lol:

And when you have multiple instances of cousin marriages, figuring out the "times removed" gives you headaches. And, I just outed my self as an inbred redneck.

[SoGladIWasCofE]

I think the jump from 'this is bad for babies' to 'pregnant women should not be allowed to do what they want with their bodies because it's bad for the baby' really needs to be questioned.

There are lots of think that are really bad for fetuses if you do them while pregnant. Like smoking or drinking. Or caffiene, when it comes down to it. The idea that women should not be allowed to do these things (or controlled beyond what a non pregnant person would be in the case of illegal drugs) because they are bad is really no better than the "pro life~" attitudes.

Pregnant people shouldn't suddenly have less rights than pregnant people. People, not incubators, right?

I mean I think we can all see that arresting women because something they did with their own body might affect fetus development is going to be completely counterproductive in terms of results. But it's also pretty bad in term of taking away women's right to bodily autonomy just because they're pregnant.

When it comes down to stuff like institutionalising women to avoid them doing things that are harmful to the fetus, is there any real difference between imprisoning (reality check, locking someone up in a hospital is not different to locking them up in a prison) someone to stop them having an abortion and imprisoning them to stop them taking drugs during a pregnancy they want to carry on with? I mean, in both cases you're pretty clearly placing the rights of the fetus above that of the pregnant person. And I'm pretty sure that most people are against locking people up to stop them having abortions.

There isn't always something to do. Yes, it sucks that children are born with preventable disabilities. A lot of the solutions to that suck a lot worse.

There probably isn't anything you can do to address this specifically in pregnancy that would reduce it. You'd actually have to sort drug addiction as a whole.

[RosyDaisy]

They don't care about the mother. All they care about is babies being born. After the baby is born, they don't care about him/her either. They will bitch about how taxpayer money is being is being used for the baby's welfare. Fuck them!

[2xx1xy1JD]

To me, the mindset that needs to change is that it is possible to treat a fetus as something to be protected independently instead of realizing that fetus and mother are a package deal.

I have heard the argument that they should be some magic change in legal status once there is a decision to carry to term. Biology doesn't work that way. The first 8 weeks are the most crucial because that is when the major structures are formed. You also don't want women avoiding health clinics because of the risk of arrest or forced treatment.