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.

So, it is your belief that someone who breaks the law habitually is, somehow, just someone with bad habits that we should feel sorry for?
Class has nothing to do with it... breaking a law is breaking a law, white collar crime or any other should be treated the same.
I feel some laws are wrong and fight to change them, sometimes I break them but know what will happen if caught & will have no one to blame but myself.

[Sundae]

I just wonder what this new law hopes to achieve? It's specifically targeting people who have not shown any previous regard for the law.

I'm not suggesting that as law breakers they require cosseting - just in the case of addiction I believe it's more sensible to offer help rather than punishment. De-tox isn't a soft option. If they go to gaol the chances of them detoxing - sadly - are minimal. It's certainly more cost effective in the long run to get someone off drugs than to keep locking them up.

And in the specific case of pregnancy, more cost effective to a) get them off drugs or b) offer them the chance not to produce drug addicted babies.

Of course I'm coming from a UK perspective where free contraception is avilable to everyone.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by SundaeGirl

I just wonder what this new law hopes to achieve? It's specifically targeting people who have not shown any previous regard for the law.

Well, they got Al Capone on tax evasion... it makes it possible to attach a much more serious penalty onto drug laws, which have been historically hard to enforce. Actually, I think this law is going to have a pro-abortion effect, not an anti-. If Jane the Crack User gets pregnant, she knows that rather than yet another court-ordered probation/substance abuse clinic/short jail term, she can now be convicted of murder if she keeps using, which she knows she will. She may decide it's better to get an abortion than to just pray the baby will be okay (or have it for the sole purpose of getting a support check from the father.)

[9th Engineer]

Which is probably a positive thing, with one slight caveat. Once we get our laws straightened out and the aborted fetuses are put to scientific use we'll need to know what substances the mother was addicted too. Shouldn't be much more complicated than tacking $10 onto the price of an abortion for maternal blood tests though.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Or they can just scrape a sample off the coathanger, if the life proponents have their way.

[Iggy]

Originally Posted by Sundae Girl

I just wonder what this new law hopes to achieve? It's specifically targeting people who have not shown any previous regard for the law.

I'm not suggesting that as law breakers they require cosseting - just in the case of addiction I believe it's more sensible to offer help rather than punishment. De-tox isn't a soft option. If they go to gaol the chances of them detoxing - sadly - are minimal. It's certainly more cost effective in the long run to get someone off drugs than to keep locking them up.

And in the specific case of pregnancy, more cost effective to a) get them off drugs or b) offer them the chance not to produce drug addicted babies.

Of course I'm coming from a UK perspective where free contraception is avilable to everyone.

Sorry... this is a really long post.

Just because someone has shown no previous regard for the law doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t be punished. I have had first hand experience with a drug addict, my sister. She never gets the punishment she deserves because the judge doesn’t think it will do any good. And I am not just speculating their reasoning, they said so themselves. And because she always gets off light, she continues to do the same things that have her end up in a courtroom. I think that the more they are punished, the more likely they will be to stop doing what is illegal. Now, it will take time for this to occur. But at least they would be more careful about how they acted if they knew that they would go to jail for a year for one offense.

I know that the one time that they actually gave her a long sentence (1 year and 145 days but she got out in six months) she didn’t break the law for several months after she got out (which is a record for her, I can assure you). She has been in detox and drug rehab over a dozen times but it doesn’t do anything. She will stay clean for the duration of de-tox but as soon as she gets out she starts up again. When she goes to rehab she just tells then what they want to hear. She has been through their program so many times that she has memorized everything she can say to get them to let her out.

Basically the only thing that has even put a dent in her attitude was jail. She needs to be locked up so she isn’t a nuisance to society (and to her family as well for that matter). I will admit that a large problem with her is our grandmother won’t say no to her. Whenever she needs a place to stay, she goes to our grandmother. Whenever she needs a ride, she goes to our grandmother. When she needs money, or food, or help in any way she goes to our grandmother. Sometimes my grandma will say no to giving her money or rides, but for the most part my sister walks all over her. And we are all helpless to stop it. We are actually in the process of moving my grandma to an apartment so she won’t have room for my sister. Then she has a legitimate excuse to tell her to go away. Oops, here I go rambling on and on about my family and getting off subject.

Back to the subject… contraception is also available to everyone here for free (that can’t afford it) as well, at least in Kansas. The problem is that the contraception offered is condoms and birth control pills, and the drug addicts aren’t responsible enough to use them as they need to be used and they end up pregnant anyway. Or they are too lazy to actually go to the clinic and get it. If they were offered the shot or the implant I think that would help things tremendously. Of course then there would be those who didn’t go back on time, but since they last so much longer than condoms or pills it is less likely they will get pregnant. Or at least they wouldn’t get pregnant but every 3 to 5 years.

[Sundae]

Sorry to hear about all you've been through with your sister Iggy. I do appreciate you know more about addicts than I do.

I just feel that in creating a law that makes a woman responsible legally for the health of her unborn child in order to get more addicts into prison, we are at the top of a slippery slope.

I also feel - because of the culture I've grown up in - that money spent on prevention, counselling, programmes and therapy is worth more than threats, especially once someone has already dropped out of normal society.

I'm not refuting any of your testimony, just didn't want to leave a long and interesting post unanswered.

[Iggy]

Thank you for your post Sundae Girl. I definitely see what you mean about money spent on prevention is worth more than threats. The only problem with that is addicts are not rational people. I wish that we could use counseling and prevention methods to stop what is happening, but seeing as how they are not rational in their behavior I fear that those wonderful programs would go unused.

If only we could prevent them from getting pregnant then things would be so much better. And I do agree that prevention would be better, but with my experience I doubt that it would help considering that the people who would be using it are addicts.

I just wanted to let you know that your opinion is valid and would work in situations where there were rational people. But as I said, addicts are not rational. But thank you again for responding.