home

Mothers Charged With Drugging Babies

Oregon has charged three mothers with passing drugs on to their babies through the umbilical cord or by breast-feeding.

Similar cases in other states have raised legal questions about holding drug-addicted mothers accountable. "No one is saying it's OK to use (drugs) or for pregnant women to use," said criminal defense attorney Karla Nash, who represents one of the women who has been charged. "But pregnant women should be able to communicate openly and honestly with health care providers without being concerned about prosecution."

Court rulings on these laws have varied widely across the country. Florida courts take this view:

In 1992, Jennifer Clarice Johnson was convicted in Florida of delivering a controlled substance to an infant after she admitted to using drugs within 24 hours before giving birth. She appealed the decision and the Supreme Court of Florida overturned her conviction.

The court found the law prohibiting delivery of a controlled substance to a minor did not apply to mothers who delivered drug-addicted babies because that was not the Legislature's intent when enacting the law. The court also held that these prosecutions violate public policy because they could discourage women from seeking prenatal care.

California's courts will soon hear this challenge:

In October 2003, a California woman was sentenced to life in prison after her 3-month-old son ingested a lethal amount of methamphetamine from her breast milk.

The Supreme Court has not yet agreed to hear a challenge to the cases:

The U.S. Supreme Court recently declined to hear an appeal from South Carolina involving a 26-year-old woman with a "below average/borderline deficiency" IQ who admitted to frequent cocaine use during a pregnancy that resulted in stillbirth. She was sentenced to 20 years in prison.

Grumpy Forrester says:

While we would hope that no woman would put her unborn child at risk through reckless and stupid drug use, we should also hope that the support and assistance of the medical community can be used to help her break the drug use cycle for the sake of her child, and not become simply a tool for the use of an aggressive District Attorney's office that may be operating with an eye toward something other than simple jurisprudence....

< Profiting Off Inmates | Say Hello >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Mothers Charged With Drugging Babies (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 09:23:02 AM EST
    Where is the Conservative Outrage! I thought they were for getting big goverment off out backs.

    Re: Mothers Charged With Drugging Babies (none / 0) (#2)
    by pigwiggle on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 09:25:19 AM EST
    Drug addicts are culpable for their addiction; this is simply child abuse.

    Re: Mothers Charged With Drugging Babies (none / 0) (#3)
    by soccerdad on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 09:42:59 AM EST
    pig has highlighted why the right pushes this issue so hard, its a way of trying to establish that a fetus is a child. If we are going to arrest women who do drugs are we going to charge every women who drinks during pregnancy? Or who is hypertensive due to obesity? or who smokes during pregnancy? Where does everyone want to draw the line?

    Re: Mothers Charged With Drugging Babies (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 09:47:45 AM EST
    Okay, fair's fair: how about prosecuting mothers who smoke tobacco or drink alcohol during pregnancy? So far as I know, both are still legal, despite the deleterious effects measurable in birth weight and fetal alcohol syndrome. Mind you, I am not endorsing such behavior; on the contrary. But alcohol and nicotine are drugs. Those who use them are drug users. Those addicted to them are drug addicts...no matter how much they may protest.

    Re: Mothers Charged With Drugging Babies (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 09:52:35 AM EST
    If I put a loaded gun into an infants hand then I should go to jail. If I put a drug into an infant's mouth, I should go to jail. Soccerdad, life and law is all about drawing lines. There is a difference between having a drink and getting drunk, being overweight and purposely eating things that are unhealthy, and the such. You may be a bit blinded by the abortion debate, which is ok, however the larger picture is the health of mothers and babies.

    Re: Mothers Charged With Drugging Babies (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 10:01:53 AM EST
    I think any man who gives a pregant woman a drink should be charged as a drug dealer and given 20 years to life with no chance of parole as well as being castrated!

    Re: Mothers Charged With Drugging Babies (none / 0) (#7)
    by pigwiggle on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 10:02:25 AM EST
    “If we are going to arrest women who do drugs are we going to charge every women who drinks during pregnancy? … or who smokes during pregnancy?” This sound good to me; justice is needed most by the weakest. “pig has highlighted why the right pushes this issue so hard, its a way of trying to establish that a fetus is a child.” SD did you miss the part of the post describing how a woman killed her infant by delivering a lethal dose of meth in her breast milk? I’ve never heard of a breast-feeding fetus. “Where does everyone want to draw the line?” I think it would be reasonable to draw the line at actions that have been shown to damage the child’s health. Perhaps you could extent your sense of community to the soon to be born.

    Re: Mothers Charged With Drugging Babies (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 10:08:46 AM EST
    So from now on any pregnant woman who has done drugs will have to avoid seeing a Doctor, getting Prenatel care or going to a hospital to have her baby! So much for the rights of the innocent unborn.

    Re: Mothers Charged With Drugging Babies (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 10:14:19 AM EST
    The key term is "harm reduction." Does prosecuting pregnant women for literally three things (posession of, use of, and transmission to a fetus or infant of illegal substances) reduce the harm done to babies? The main argument for this practice is that it will result in less women using illegal substances while pregnant (falling back on the idea that prison is an effective deterrant to drug use, which is improbable, especially in the case of substances which are very addictive). But it's not clear that our current system is more effective in this regard than free access to information would be. Many women who are drug users or even addicts will undoubtedly neglect to mention their use to their obstetrician, for the reasonable fear that they will be turned over to the police. Because of this, many women may not have the relevant information that such substances can be passed through the placenta or milk to their baby, and may continue using them (and possibly being prosecuted when the fetus is legally old enough because a drug screen is done without consent). Yes, child endangerment is a serious issue, but it seems very unfair to prosecute someone for it at the same time that we continue practices which restrict the information needed to prevent it. The further question being: Is a minimum of harm done by incarcerating a newborn's mother, and is it less than the alternatives might cause?

    Re: Mothers Charged With Drugging Babies (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 10:16:44 AM EST
    So from now on any pregnant woman who has done drugs will have to avoid seeing a Doctor, getting Prenatel care or going to a hospital to have her baby! Exactly. All too often the Right creates legislation with apparently no regard as to the effects of it, or maybe they simply don't care. They feel they are taking the moral high ground, I suppose, but they are just spreading more misery in the world.

    Re: Mothers Charged With Drugging Babies (none / 0) (#11)
    by pigwiggle on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 10:27:17 AM EST
    “The key term is "harm reduction."” No, I think we are talking about culpability and justice. “Exactly. All too often the Right creates legislation with apparently no regard as to the effects of it, or maybe they simply don't care.” Well, I can’t say what the Right thinks, but you’re fairly transparent. Legislation is a tool of social design and not justice.

    Re: Mothers Charged With Drugging Babies (none / 0) (#12)
    by desertswine on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 10:28:06 AM EST
    So who's to blame when a mother passes pesticides or rocket fuel to her infant via breast milk? No one?? How come I'm not seeing rich energy executives or their pawn politicians going to prison?

    Re: Mothers Charged With Drugging Babies (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 10:38:04 AM EST
    Ive got every time we find a pregnant woman on drugs lets indict Clinton!

    Re: Mothers Charged With Drugging Babies (none / 0) (#14)
    by Pete Guither on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 10:53:31 AM EST
    lorax has it exactly right. Throwing mom in jail isn't best for mom, the child, or society. Nor does it work as a deterrent to addicts. It may, in fact, increase the risks of other cases being hidden. Treating it as a health issue and using harm reduction philosophy makes more sense. It's better for the children, for families, and for society. We've really got to stop this notion that jail is somehow the magic answer to everything that's wrong. In way too many cases, it just makes the problem worse.

    Re: Mothers Charged With Drugging Babies (none / 0) (#15)
    by Che's Lounge on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 11:26:43 AM EST
    Bocajeff that is by far the STUPIDEST thing I have ever read on this site.

    Re: Mothers Charged With Drugging Babies (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 11:37:00 AM EST
    you could take this argument to the next level, suppose a woman gives birth to a child who has some defect due to drug use, but it's not the mother's drug use the donation of a defective/damaged sperm that is the cause. Do you then charge the father with harming the infant? And if not, why?

    Re: Mothers Charged With Drugging Babies (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 11:39:02 AM EST
    shoot, it should read "not the mother's drug use BUT the "donation" of a..

    Re: Mothers Charged With Drugging Babies (none / 0) (#18)
    by soccerdad on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 11:48:28 AM EST
    pig did u read the part about passing via the umbilical cord? If its about harm reduction, contrary to inuition, there is little evidence that Cocaine causes long term effects on infants or affects delivery. Now what do you do, still want to prosecute? Want to do real harm reduction? Then do outreach and get all pregnant women prenatal care. But whats the fun in that. cant throw people in jail or rail about personal responsibility. There is such a thing as addicitve personality, are these people full responsible? wANT TO

    Re: Mothers Charged With Drugging Babies (none / 0) (#19)
    by kdog on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 11:51:18 AM EST
    We've really got to stop this notion that jail is somehow the magic answer to everything that's wrong. In way too many cases, it just makes the problem worse
    Well said Pete, well said. Jail accomplishes mothing, except ensuring these drug addicted mothers come out of jail drug addicted hardened criminals. Addiction is a medical problem, treat it as such.

    Re: Mothers Charged With Drugging Babies (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 11:54:56 AM EST
    So let's travel down this slippery slope where, with regards to our government, according to BocaJeff,
    the larger picture is the health of mothers and babies.
    Great, so now we've launched a War on Bad Moms. This means that, if a pregnant mom allows herself to be physically abused her and the abuser are both sent to prison and the baby sent to Dept. of Social Services(a government sponsored "parenting" agency as unfit as any parent I've met). It's not too big of a stretch to say that lack of a male role model is abusive - single mom's better get a man fast! Why wait for drug users to get pregnant? Instead of jail time for conviction, let's just sterilize! (We could fund the Soc. Sec. deficit with the money we'd save on prison costs). Smoking in the presence of your children, regardless of the ultimate health impact is a bad influence. Get rid of these abusive parents and give the kids to nice clean healthy ones. Corporal punishment is obviously abuse and should be illegal in all cases. Principals and teachers who advocate it should be fired and jailed, as should the parents. As much as I advocate for the rights of children, this is one area where the government should BUTT OUT. The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty was founded to prevent the most horrible abuses. The overarching "police" rights given to this organization (to prevent children who tell from being returned to their punishers) and the so-called "rights of taxpayers" to legislate my behavior based on imagined future health care expenses have not usurped my right to have the children I want and to raise them as I see fit. Oh yeah, and the right of the so-called "moral majority" to use legislation to impose Christian values on my family is crap too. None of you have the right to decide what's best for me and my family. If my kid wants to sue me when they realize I've screwed them up, then so be it. I need to move around a bit now - the government is getting too big inside my uterus and pinching a nerve. Does anybody have a pillow?

    Re: Mothers Charged With Drugging Babies (none / 0) (#21)
    by pigwiggle on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 12:10:26 PM EST
    “contrary to inuition, there is little evidence that Cocaine causes long term effects on infants or affects delivery. Now what do you do, still want to prosecute?” If that’s true then of course I don’t. “There is such a thing as addicitve personality, are these people full responsible?” Yes. Interesting idea though; after being jailed multiple times subsequent to domestic battery, and undergoing court ordered anger management, a man finally batters his wife to death. The defense argues ‘homicidal personality’ as a cause for reduces culpability. “the government is getting too big inside my uterus and pinching a nerve.” You invited it in.

    Re: Mothers Charged With Drugging Babies (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 12:13:53 PM EST
    ...interesting discussion here, but the reason I sent this to Jeralyn to begin with was because of the fact that blood tests were taken in a hospital setting, the results were turned over to Human Services, and then were subsequently given to the District Attorney. My point was that these women gave blood or allowed their infants to give blood without warning of self-incrimination or the possibility of indictment, conviction, and long jail terms. It was that taint of illegal search and seizure that jangled my nerves... the Grumpy Forester

    Re: Mothers Charged With Drugging Babies (none / 0) (#23)
    by pigwiggle on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 12:24:34 PM EST
    “My point was that these women gave blood or allowed their infants to give blood without warning of self-incrimination or the possibility of indictment, conviction, and long jail terms.” My wife is routinely instructed by her attending physicians to test some patients for drugs, particularly when they deny use. They ask if they can draw blood for some routine tests, then use the positive narcotic test as an opportunity to counsel the patient on the ramifications of drug use. It is underhanded but far from illegal as the patients can, at any time, refuse a given test or all tests.

    Re: Mothers Charged With Drugging Babies (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 03:39:19 PM EST
    mfox: Amen!! And as a man of experience, I wholeheartedly agree with the notion that jail is more of a problem than a solution. There just isn't room in jail for everyone you disagree with, or everyone who doesn't raise ther kids the way you want. By the way, how are your kids? Did they ever do anything that might get them thrown in jail? And if they did, would you know about it?

    Re: Mothers Charged With Drugging Babies (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 03:43:23 PM EST
    The last two paragraphs were directed at the "lawnorder" group, not you, mfox.

    Re: Mothers Charged With Drugging Babies (none / 0) (#26)
    by pigwiggle on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 03:49:40 PM EST
    “There just isn't room in jail for everyone you disagree with, or everyone who doesn't raise ther kids the way you want.” I feel very comfortable ‘disagreeing’ with a mother whose idea of ‘raising their kid’ is delivering a lethal dose of meth through her breast milk. I’m sorry folks, this one is a slam dunk.

    Re: Mothers Charged With Drugging Babies (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 03:56:42 PM EST
    The "lethal dose" case had experts on both sides. The defense experts stated that the level of meth wasn't lethal. They also did the math - this involves the volume of distribution of meth, the metabolic profile, the rate of absorption, and the ultimate concentration in breast milk - and determined that the child would have needed to drink several quarts of milk in one sitting to get that much meth in his system. So, who you gonna believe? The DA (a non-scientist, with a capital NON), the media reports (always a good source of accurate news, the jury (12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty) or someone who studies these things every day of his life? Never mind...

    Re: Mothers Charged With Drugging Babies (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 05:51:15 PM EST
    The Handmaid's Tale Reality Show.

    Re: Mothers Charged With Drugging Babies (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 06:05:02 AM EST
    first alcohol and smoking are both legal (unhealthy but legal). crack heroin meth etc.. are not legal substances.the birth defects that these drugs cause are terrible.you don't want these women to be prosicuted for chances their chiids health. try not getting pregnant if your an addict.we are all resposible for our own actions except for the baby in the womb it simply is not right for a child to be born with addictions and health defects because the mother didn't care enough to take percautions.this world is hard enough you don't need to be born with a handicap that could have been prevented.

    Re: Mothers Charged With Drugging Babies (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 06:28:35 AM EST
    Dawn, your comment brings me back to my original point: though both nicotine and alcohol are legal, they also cause damage. Legality doesn't remove that fact. I see you agree that illicit drug addictions are a terrible thing to saddle a baby with, but do you think that a child born to a smoker or alcoholic doesn't have the addictions for those substances wired into their systems courtesy of constant exposure? It leads to the question of how much of their crying after birth is caused by withdrawal symptoms from those two legal substances?

    Re: Mothers Charged With Drugging Babies (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 08:46:06 AM EST
    I had a drink a day when I was pregnant. I had a hard time and it was soothing. I also smoked. I had a healthy baby who is now a healthy young adult. This was in the late 70's. Previous to that, women drank and smoked during pregnancy without being condemned for it. It's excessive alcohol that causes problems. We tend to get so hysterical about these things.

    Re: Mothers Charged With Drugging Babies (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 08:47:46 AM EST
    Oh, yeah, the post above mine refers to crying babies. Mine was so perfect and happy, I couldn't have ordered a better one.

    Re: Mothers Charged With Drugging Babies (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 09:16:00 AM EST
    Re: Mothers Charged With Drugging Babies (none / 0) (#34)
    by pigwiggle on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 12:55:35 PM EST
    “I had a drink a day when I was pregnant. I had a hard time and it was soothing. I also smoked.” If you had not drank or smoked your child may have been smarter, or more attractive, or taller, or more robust; because your baby was healthy does not mean you didn’t damage it in any number of ways. Further, assuming you are correct (unlikely as it is) and your child didn’t suffer from your drinking and smoking does not mean on average babies do not suffer from their mothers drinking and smoking during the pregnancy; your evidence is merely anecdotal. It has been shown that low birth weight and mothers smoking during pregnancy are correlated.

    Re: Mothers Charged With Drugging Babies (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 05:21:34 PM EST
    So it's ok for a pregnant woman to "choose", i.e., murder her unborn child while still in the womb, but, if she does the same thing with cocaine abuse, she gets 20 years in prison. Either the unborn child has rights or it does not. Why is it that the govt. gets to have it both ways? Oh, I forgot, the politicians own shares in the privatized prison industries and they can use the slave labor. Isn't the drug war just grand? GoNuclear

    Re: Mothers Charged With Drugging Babies (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 03:53:07 AM EST
    The hypocrisy demonstrated by our lawmakers never ceases to amaze me… The "New Freedom Initiative Act", which was proposed by G.W. Bush is 2002 and was passed by Congress in November 2004, mandates Mental Health Screening for ALL Children (up to 18 years of age) without Parental Consent. * Mandatory psychiatric exams for all children ages 0-18 years * A data-reporting system to track the "social-emotional development" of each child * If a child is deemed "mentally unhealthy", the government can mandate that the child undergoes drug therapy * If a parent does not comply with this mandate by refusing to medicate their child, they can be charged with "child abuse" * Drug Companies expect an adjusted 18 Billion Dollars a year increase in Profits as a result of this initiative * It is predicted that ½ of America's Schoolchildren will be put on psychotropic drugs by the end of the decade ......That’s right, folks…the end of the decade is just 5 short years from now No longer will Parents have the right to decide what medical treatment is appropriate for their children... because this is the Government's job now (and, of course, they “know what’s best” for all of us) The idea of the Government being the ultimate decider of who is and isn't "mentally fit" is something straight out of George Orwell's, 1984. It’s not hard to imagine where this type of thing will eventually lead… In 25 years or so, government psychiatrists will diagnose anyone with “non compliant” religious, social, or political views as “mentally ill”. Wow! We should all be “thanking our lucky stars” for being granted all of this “New Freedom” I just wonder how we, as children, every survived without our daily dose of Prozac and Ridlan.