FDA CONSIDERS ALLOWING MORNING AFTER PILL TO BE SOLD OVER THE COUNTER

[Sundae]

This came to my attention this week:

From the Guardian re pregnant mothers who abuse drugs are considered to be commiting child abuse

Precis:

Monday September 4, 2006
Diane Taylor


When Regina McKnight, of South Carolina, went to her local hospital to give birth in May 1999, she prayed that the baby would be healthy. She had good reason to worry... McKnight had begun smoking crack. She was naturally devastated when the baby was stillborn - and shocked, five months later, to be charged with homicide. Prosecutors argued that smoking crack had caused the stillbirth and that McKnight should therefore be classed as a murderer.

In the US, more than 20 states now define drug use by an expectant mother as child abuse, neglect or even torture, while The Unborn Victims of Violence Act, passed by Congress in 2004, argues that foetuses are separate persons under the law, with rights independent of the pregnant woman. Any aspect of a pregnant woman's behaviour that might risk foetal health - except of course abortion - is therefore open to punishment in the courts. And last May, legislators in Arkansas proposed making it... an offence worthy of prosecution for a pregnant woman to smoke a single cigarette.

Lynn Paltrow believes that hatred of women is at the root of the trend. "It's linked to 30 years of vicious anti-abortion rhetoric that describes women who terminate pregnancies as murderers," she says. "You can't have that level of hateful rhetoric and just limit it to abortion. Once pregnant women are seen as capable of heinous crimes like murder, they are dehumanised."

Those targeted are disproportionately black and poor. And all the sound and fury about the highly prized foetus evaporates once it is no longer in utero: children of drug-addicted mothers are often dumped in foster placements, where study after study has shown they have little chance of thriving.

I just can't see that women who are addicted to hard drugs are going to suddenly turn their life around because of a possible conviction. Those who care about their unborn child may find the strength to do so - but they would have done it without threat of punishment.

Isn't this just a "feel good" solution for the law abiding middle classes? In the same way that refusing to provide the morning after pill to girls legally entitled to have intercourse is?

It costs £81 in Britain (US $152) to have an implant for 3 years. It can be removed at any point and the woman will be fertile from the moment of removal. It costs so much more to deliver a baby, put someone on trial and imprison them. Why aren't more women at risk of unwanted pregnancies being helped not hindered?

Sorry, I know it's a hobby horse. I would honestly be interested in arguments against.