I just wanted to thank you for the work that you do. The dehumanization of pregnant women is really horrible, especially when the women in question have so few resources.

My God... I cannot believe that a United State actually convicted a woman for, in essence, not following proper pre-natal care procedures.

Shit like this makes me extremely tempted to run out and get my tubes tied, or my uterus removed, or something. Except that since I'm 25 no one would ever actually take me at my word that I don't want biological children.

South Dakota is at it now too.
http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2007/bills/HB1107p.htm

It adds a line making it criminal if your using drugs or alcohol while pregnant. It also is not clear what they consider abusive.

This one is flying under the radar because of some other regressive legislation.

It adds a line making it criminal if your using drugs or alcohol while pregnant.

Drugs or ALCOHOL??

Fucking IDIOTS. Any doctor worth his/her salt will tell you that a little bit of alcohol, once the fetus is past a certain developmental stage, is perfectly healthy and may in fact be beneficial. My father (a conservative PCP) has recommended to his pregnant patients that they have a glass of wine with dinner. And he's a darling of doctors and conservatives back home.

wow, thanks so much for this! I was totally blown away by your presentation at the NAPW conference and I"m so glad this is here now. The women at the session were SO courageous and amazing to speak about their own stories - even to step outside their professional lives among their colleagues to do so. I was really wowed. Thanks for the work you do and for putting this all into perspective!

Gosh, I just don't think I agree with this cause at all. For the record, I'm incredibly pro-choice (in fact I'm pro-abortion). And I'll put aside the debate about exactly how much/what kind of drugs are safe while pregnant and for the sake of argument assume they're dangerous. And certainly conceed that I would not want to see a convicted woman in jail, but in some kind of rehabilitation. All that said, the analogy above clearly fails. Driving while intoxicated? A crime, because you can hurt someone. If you're going to have the kid, crime, because you can hurt it. I don't claim to know the best solution to this problem but the argument presented above is pretty ridiculous.

Let me reiterate: I do NOT consider a fetus a person. I consider a fetus to have more similarities to a lima bean. But these actions have future consequences. Taking drugs while pregant NOW can result in an abused child later.

you are correct law fairy, i have heard that many times. although i do have a major problem with anyone abusing anything while they are pregnant. these women should be given BC before it even gets to such a tragic point.

i would also like to mention that this is just another way to brand a fetus as a human. if you can apply human laws then you can call it murder when someone has an abortion. its all part of the same plan, they clearly dont really care about these kids born to all fucked up drug addicted mothers.

And who are you, jeff, to decide which benefits and which risks are acceptable for the woman in question? Is abrupt withdrawal safe for the woman or her fetus? Who gets to make that call? What if my doctor decides that it's safer for me to stay on my asthma meds while I'm pregnant? Does the state get to second-guess us?

The issue is not whether pregnant women should shoot heroin--no women should shoot heroin, indeed, no people should shoot heroin, it's not good for you--the issue is whether or not these women should be prosecuted for "crimes."

I find it telling that the state only thinks it has a compelling interest to intervene when poor innocent widdle babies might be hurt. What about the woman? Why don't we care about her?

jeff, one problem is that this law doesn't make exceptions for women who intend to abort, but have not yet. If I've decided to abort and have scheduled my abortion for later in the week, and then I have a drink with some friends, I could be prosecuted under this law even though, for purposes of my pregnancy, the fetus has ceased to be human.

Further, if we're going to pass laws aimed at ensuring that the fetus develops into a healthy child, what's next? Will women be proscuted for skipping their pre-natal vitamins one day? For having a cup of coffee? For eating a hot dog? For inhaling second-hand smoke? If we're allowing the state to infringe on women's rights under the guise of protecting the fetus (and with respect to alcohol that's PRECISELY what's happening), where do we draw the line?

And, to be clear, Jill's point re drunk driving was that laws are directed at ACTIONS, not statuses. There's a well-known line of criminal cases in the Supreme Court, holding that creating a law criminalizing a STATUS is unconstitutional. Thus, even though drinking under some circumstances can be made criminal, being an alcoholic can NEVER be made a crime. If a cop catches you shooting up, you can be arrested for possession. But being a heroin addict can NEVER be criminalized. Thus, testing positive for drugs may serve as evidence of possession -- but being addicted to drugs is not, and can never be, a basis itself for criminal conviction. Testing positive for a certain blood-alcohol level after being pulled over is evidence that you have been drinking and driving -- but being an alcoholic is not, and can never be, a basis itself for a criminal conviction. That is to say, there's a distinction to be drawn between what can be used as evidence of a crime, and what is itself a crime. Testing positive for heroin is not a crime. Possessing heroin is a crime. If pregnant women are being convicted for HAVING taken drugs or HAVING consumed alcohol (and not for possessing drugs or drunk driving), this may very well amount to an unconstitutional status crime.

I don't know about the state but I certainly care about her (hence my advocating for rehab in this situation).

But let me ask: who are YOU to tell me how to raise my child? Why can't I smack it with a bat if it misbehaves? Why can't I teach it the world is flat instead of sending it to school?

The point being, if we're going to think about a progressive model for society, then we have to weigh everyone's rights. And having a pregnant woman snorting coke and planning to keep the child is shorting some people on their rights (the future child, not the child now, as well as the rest of us for the burden of taking care of it should something go wrong). I'm not claiming it's easy to figure out where, but it has to be somewhere, no?

But raising a child is significantly different from being pregnant, Jeff. Being pregnant is the state of the woman's body. A born child isn't a bodily extension of self. It's a separate person. But a pregnant woman is still a woman, a person unto herself, who has to make decisions about her own welfare as well as the welfare of the fetus she's carrying, if she plans to carry to term. Those decisions are not so clear cut as legistors would like to believe. As I noted above, it's not a good idea for a pregnant woman to snort coke--but I find it hard to believe that it's a good idea for a pregnant woman to go through cold turkey withdrawal either, and those are the options. I don't want legislators making medical decisions. Further, i don't want them enforcing their decisions with jailtime.

And unfortunately, people do keep their kids home from school in order to each them anti-science nonsense all the time. There's no law against it. It's also legal, as I understand it, to refuse to allow your child to have life-saving medical procedures because of religious beliefs--I'm not sure I see such a meaningful difference between that and hitting the kid with a bat, though I'm sure others would disagree.

I don't know if it is or is not best to quite coke while pregnant cold-turkey, so let me be clear that I think this is a tragically malformed law. But I think it needs to be admitted that it's not as simple as the tried-and-true "it's her body" argument.

"jeff, one problem is that this law doesn't make exceptions for women who intend to abort"

I agree. This is bogus.

"Testing positive for a certain blood-alcohol level after being pulled over is evidence that you have been drinking and driving "

Testing positive for herion, if the test reveals behavior in the past x months, and you've been pregnant > x months, is "taking heroin while pregnant" in the same way blowing .17 when you're pulled over is "being drunk while driving".

Yes, it is part of a woman's body. And if she decides to keep it, she's in one hell of a great position to abuse it. This isn't like abortion. If, at the age of 12, I realize I'm missing an arm (to use a silly false example) because mom was wasted while she was pregnant with me, I'm real pissed off about it. I can't be pissed 12 years after being aborted.

"what's next? "

politics is about drawing lines on slipperly slopes. I'm not drawing one here, only framing the argument.

You know, though, I think it is that simple, because we're talking about law and criminal charges. It is her body, and therefore she, and her doctor if she has one, are in the best position to figure out how to balance the pros and cons of her situation, far better than the state. If the state was really concerned about the health of infants, it would be passing laws protecting women and children from poverty, guaranteeing them the best health care, access to adequately nutritious food, well-funded domestic violence shelters, funding outreach programs to help pregnant women get off drugs, etc., not punishing women who are already in lousy situations. But it's far easier to blame those bad mommies.

I had to go to the ER for a very traumatic and painful miscarriage and what happened? I had to report whether I did or did not do about ten thousand things from smoking to sit-ups. It was the most humiliating experience of my life and I know that pregnant women have to put up with so much worse. I live in Kentucky, if that explains anything. Then they tried to tell me that they were just SURE I didn't do anything wrong, and that it was just procedure. Fuck that. It was a government administered guilt trip.

Let's start prosecuting men for smoking and drinking too much caffeine if they "might" get a woman pregnant while we're at it.

I also had a friend who was a heavy smoker when she unknowingly became pregnant. Her doctor honestly told her the stress of quitting would be worse for the fetus than cutting back by about 90%. The judgement and looks that fell her way because of her two to five cigarettes a day put me in an outright rage.

"what's next? "

politics is about drawing lines on slipperly slopes. I'm not drawing one here, only framing the argument.

I have no problem also asking "what's next?" because I wore my rubber-soled shoes today. They have excellent traction.

For consistency's sake you DO have to draw a line...we certainly don't police the eating/drinking/drug habits of potential dads. Why not set up mandatory random drug testing for sperm-producing fellas, JUST IN CASE one happens to impregnate a girl with his druggie sperm? I mean if he decides to use it, he's in one hell of a position to abuse it, right?

Jeff, I'm going to assume you wouldn't care much for that idea. I don't either, because that implies you are merely a sperm producer. I sure as hell don't want people monitoring me, because I'm more than an incubator.

As much as some people would like to "protect" fetuses, part of our adult behavior dictates that we trust other adults to do what's best for themselves, even if a fetus is involved. I'm appalled that theoretically, a woman can just go to jail for having a vagina...think about it - what if, someday, in one of these ass-backwards states a woman is raped while addicted to drugs, and subsequently thrown into jail because she couldn't get an abortion?

This reminds me of a Paul Frank T-shirt I own with the phrase "my eyes are up here" with two arrows, printed across the boobies. Do we all need to start wearing the same, except with the phrase positioned on the belly?

I know you stated you're pro-choice, but men have to be very careful about expressing opinions that will never personally apply to them.

Let's start prosecuting men for smoking and drinking too much caffeine if they "might" get a woman pregnant while we're at it.

Great minds think alike, C-Bird...and considering I spent my high school years in Owensboro, KY, which explains everything. :)

Yikes, sorry about the grammar - I've had lots of problems with previewing and posting today.

I'm so thankful for this post.
This is such a complicated issue. And I really don't know where I stand on it.
On one hand, I am pro-choice and I fear the idea that fetal rights would trump women's rights. This would play right into the hands of the anti-abortion groups.
On the other hand, I still wonder if the rights (or at least the health) of the fetus, esp. in later stages of pregnancy should be protected legally.
For example, when my sister was 7 months pregnant her husband repeatedly strangled her, threatened to punch her pregnant belly, locked her in the house, and cut the phone lines. She escaped and filed for divorce. When the baby was born prematurely (brought on by stress) my sister wanted to file for full custody. She was told my multiple lawyers that this would never happen. The point was that despite the fact that her husband threatened the fetus (the threat of punching) and strangled my pregnant sister (thereby cutting off the air supply of both her and the fetus) he could not legally be considored a child abuser. Spousal abuser, yes. The argument was that the child would have to be born and either a victim or witness to the abuse, in order for this man to be seen as a child abuser.
Now my sister must hand over her screaming toddler every other weekend and once a week to a man who threatened not just her life but the life of that child.
In the end, I haven't been able to decide where I stand on these issues.

jeff, I'm probably not phrasing things the right way. I'll try it differently.

If the problem is using/possessing coke, why do we need an ADDITIONAL law passed to prevent pregnant women from doing this? Essentially we are penalizing her extra for having the status of being pregnant. That makes the law unconstitutional.

The case of alcohol use is even more troubling. An adult woman has the RIGHT to consume alcohol, period. This is a legal right, there is no law against a grown woman drinking (assuming she's at least 21). By criminalizing PREGNANT WOMEN drinking, it is criminalizing the status of being pregnant. The woman is doing nothing that would be otherwise illegal EXCEPT for the fact that she is pregnant. This is also unconstitutional.

And as for the slippery slope thing, whether or not it's a good argument could be up for debate. But I don't see a clear delineation between drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes, or drinking caffeinated coffee, or eating processed meats (which I've heard is also a pregnancy "no-no"). If the issue is causing later harm to the future child, there's no reason to emphasize drugs and alcohol over other, equally harmful behaviors. However, if the issue is morally restraining pregnant women, this law seems perfectly logical. The only problem is, legislatures aren't here to be the arbiters of morality for pregnant women. Making differential laws for people simply because of the STATUS of being pregnant is constitutionally repugnant. That the focus is on these two things, to me, bespeaks an insidious sort of "government-knows-best" approach to women's lives. It kinda makes me want to vomit.

OH and by the way,
I am also terrified that women could be prosecuted for alcohol use (etc). For example, in 2001 I drank a bottle of champagne on the Fourth of July. Later that week I found out I was pregnant. I'm also a painter. My partner and I worked our a system whereby I could complete one of my commissioned oil painting after we discovered the pregnancy. I had to take a lot of precautions (like not washing my own brushes, using extra ventilation and gloves...). After I completed that painting I switched over to water colors. The baby was fine. In fact, he's super healthy and starting a program for gifted children next year. Point is, if prosecuting women for endangering a fetus became commonplace, I could have easily been prosecuted for those two things. And I know that I'm a great mom!

I appreciate a lot of these points but some of them are beside what I'm trying to say.

"If the state was really concerned about the health of infants, it would be passing laws protecting women and children from poverty..."

I whole-heartedly agree. But this doesn't mean child abuse shouldn't be punished. And an anecdote about one woman who smoked while pregant isn't much of an argument that, say, fetal alcohol syndrome doesn't exist, because it does.

No, we don't police the behavior of potential dads. Because they can't directly abuse a child in the same way. It's a harsh law of nature that women have to carry a child for 9 months, but it's a truth we have to work with. It's unfair, but it is so. I'm also not advocating random checks, which would be unconsitutional the same way they are for driving (in fact, it's not clear to me how a woman would get "caught" in this situation, so I guess this is academic...)

"I'm appalled that theoretically, a woman can just go to jail for having a vagina"

If by this you mean there are situations in which a woman could be punished (and I don't agree with jail) by virtue of the biological fact that she has the ability to carry a child, well, that's an unfortunate byproduct of preventing the creation of abused children . And since I'm stridenly pro-abortion, I'm not advocating jailing raped drug-addicted women. And I'm not trying to "protect" fetuses, I'm trying to protect kids. If people want to get pregnant, do drugs, and abort it, I couldn't care less.

"far better than the state"

This is in direct conflict with the opinions I assume are held by the majority of the posters here. See my previous comment about disciplining my kids with a bat.

I just want to reiterate that I'm in complete agreement that the law in question is awful, but the arguments being made against it I'm dissapointed with. A law I would advocate would be something much more reasonable, along the lines of assigning the person to a doctor and having the individual situation assessed - making the woman aware of the consequences, odds, encouraging abortion if necessary, that sort of thing.

I don't think this situation is being reasonably assessed, and I think that arguments about abortion that are being applied to it are not completely relevent - this is a different situation, and that's not being addressed.

tankerton, the situation with your sister sounds HORRIBLE.

But it seems to me the problem is not that the fetus isn't considered "human" -- but rather that the state would ACTUALLY deny full custody to a woman attempting to protect her future child (or, hell, ANYONE) from a KNOWN abuser. Someone who has abused his wife should not be considered a fit parent, imho. He has shown a lack of respect for the personal autonomy and bodily integrity of others, and the fact that he has abused the mother of his own child suggests he is not fit to be a father. The law shouldn't require that a person ACTUALLY abuse a child before we protect that child from the abuser. The point of the law should be to KEEP the child from getting hurt -- where we have some pretty good suggestive evidence that the guy will harm the kid, it seems irresponsible to me to allow him unsupervised visits and custody.

tankerton, your story is horrible (the one about your sister's abusive ex, not the one about how you and your husband worked together so you could continue your art!). Your sister's ex should be in jail for assaulting and almost killing his wife. He shouldn't have any rights to see your niece/nephew because he is a violent criminal who can't be trusted.

But I agree with you with that his attacks on your sister--specifically his attacks on her womb and attempts to hurt the baby deserve special recognition under the law. I think we can do this without prosecuting women though, if we had laws that made it a crime to injure a fetus against the will of the woman carrying it, perhaps, or if we had laws that made it a crime to attempt to induce a miscarriage against the pregnant woman's will. I think feminist versions of such laws would hinge on recognizing the woman in the pregnancy, talk about it terms of forcing an abortion/miscarriage on a pregnant woman.

C-bird, I'm so sorry for your loss. Your story illustrates something that I know from my friends and family--women who miscarry or whose children are born with anomalies already carry huge amounts of guilt. We don't need to add to it.

Scary. Just one more reason to never want kids...

It reminds me of this article: http://www.alternet.org/story/18493/

"A law I would advocate would be something much more reasonable, along the lines of assigning the person to a doctor and having the individual situation assessed - making the woman aware of the consequences, odds, encouraging abortion if necessary, that sort of thing."

That's not how laws work, though. They criminalize. This kind of social program would be far more similar to what I was advocating--funding outreach programs to help women addicted to drugs.

Wow. I kept writing angry post for Jeff, but it got so tiresome! Don't want to go to jail for an angry blog post, do I?!?

I'd better go coo over my giant stomach-babyhood and forget I'm a human being with quasi-rights and a brain!! Thanks, Jeff, I almost thought I was a person with crazy flaws and all!

And thank you EG, I'm eight months now and feeling wonderful as I have the whole time. I can't even fathom what some women go through and are forced to go through.

And BTW, I'm enjoying a nice pint of Newcastle right now. Sue me:P

Cheers, C-Bird! Wishing you the best.

The other issue that nobody has addressed is that medical opinion on what's best for the kid changes by the year. When my mom was pregnant with me, her doctor told her, hey, why not have a drink with dinner each day? Well, in her case (not everybody's, just hers!), the minute the first glass of wine was down her throat, her stomach turned over and she barely made to the bathroom before spending the next few hours being sick. 8 years later, pregnant with my sister, the doctors were saying no alcohol at all. Why should women be held captive to changeable opinions, especially when such opinions vary by culture (do French women abstain completely from wine when pregnant?)?

C-Bird, you're being ridiculous. I'm a self-described male feminist and I like to think I'm intellectually honest and a rational person, and the hysterics are unnecessary.

It does not follow that laws could apply differently to a pregnant or non-pregnant woman. This has been stated as though it is obvious but it is not clear to me. Laws apply differently in all sorts of situations. People that are blind can't legally drive - is that discriminating against them just because they're blind?

The arguments vilifying the state seem very libertarian and surprising to me from this crowd. The state is us, and it's all that stands between us and a whole host of bad situations. If the state can stop a person from abusing their children, surely it can have some interaction with a person who is in the process of creating a malformed child due to their actions.

People who abuse drug(s) have illnesses that cause them to have poor judgment as a *primary* symptom. So someone with both an addiction and a uterus isn't going to be any better at making decisions about THAT than about any other part of their life.
As long as our society uses a criminal/moral paradigm for drug abuse, rather than a public health paradigm, drug-abusing women will wind up pregnant b/c you've got to have your shit together to keep from getting pregnant. As BitchPhD says, its NOT getting pregnant that is the choice.
Jeff - and others - you need to be careful when you start mixing tenses when talking about rights and responsibilities. The woman is the here and now, and has both. Until that final separation between uterus and born baby, the fetus is potential only. Once you grant it anything more, what have you done to the existing woman? And if YOU were the one with the uterus, how much of YOUR personhood would you want to subsume to that potential?
Not all children - hell, not even most children - born to addicted moms have birth defects, and we don't have any good way to figure out which ones might. Many of the children who are born with birthdefects are born to parents who knew that was a potential outcome - are they guilty of abuse, or even shakier - future abuse when they decided to continue the pregnancy?

jeff, this is nitpicky and might be dismissed as legalese -- but, to be clear. It is not the *status* of being blind that makes it illegal for one to drive, it is the fact that a blind person cannot pass the driver's test required to get a license. My mother is "legally blind" because of her horrible eyesight. She has a driver's license with a vision restriction, because with visual aids she is able to pass the driver's test. Without them she is not, and therefore she is not allowed to drive without visual aids. If a status makes you UNABLE to perform requisite tasks for a license, it is your inability to perform those tasks, rather than your status, that is "punished" (if you will).

There is no corollary in the pregnancy context. In order to be guilty of child abuse, there must first be a child who is being abused. Pursuant to Roe a fetus does not legally qualify as a "child." Thus the law's only means to restrict is by appeal to the woman's status as being a pregnant woman. This brings it into the line of cases finding status crimes unconstitutional. Thus, the law is an unconstitutional criminalization of a status.

"The arguments vilifying the state seem very libertarian and surprising to me from this crowd."

I think you'll find that "this crowd" is pretty consistently opposed to government interference in our bodies.

I'm sorry, Jeff, if I've misunderstood. I do take things personally about pregnanat women's rights because I've spent my whole (successful) pregnancy with people telling me contradicting things that I should and shouldn't be doing. That's not counting the miscarriage guilt trip.

My point is some things are okay for some women and some are not. I know common sense says, "Don't do drugs!" as a pregnancy mantra, but it's not that easy. Whether people believe it or not, life does not change when you get pregnant. It's strangely exactly the same, which may shock some people.

Point is, it's hard, even for a moderate drinker and occasional smoker. The fact that women who are physically addicted to drugs are being put in jail (!!!) where they will get LESS healthcare and treatment is a concern.

Further, referring to C-Bird's "hysterics" is a pretty lousy thing to do. It's a loaded word, and what it's loaded with is sexism. The fact is that this issue is of immediate, visceral significance to women, even more so to pregnant women. And therefore, our reactions just might be more vehement than you, in your infinite wisdom, consider necessary. But your standards are no more objective then ours.

And I don't appreciate the "hysterics" comment. At all.

I'm sorry if my brain is busy putting a fucking human being together, but I don't find it to be crazy at all.

Oh -- as to the libertarian thing -- I think that, other than "feminist," the label "libertarian" actually fits me reasonably well. I'm distrustful of the government in virtually every context and would like to see less of it in both my everyday life AND my paycheck. I think that caring individuals accomplish far more for good in this world than the government could ever hope to. I think the government should, in what ways it can, ENCOURAGE good behavior and prohibit harmful behavior -- but I don't believe in a liberal "nanny state" any more than I believe in a right-wing dictatorship. Putting too much power in the hands of any one entity is unwise. Our separate branches of government are meant to prevent any one of them from becoming too powerful -- but even then, when the government simply HAS a great deal of power, even splitting it among three arms is not enough to distort the harmful effects.

So, for me at least, my belief in necessary and important legislative and social policies should not be taken to mean, at all, that I'm a government blank-check-er or anything of the sort.

Well, if I don't leave to eat I might die.

Anyways, my roommate explained to me why "hysterics" was a poor choice of words, so I'm sorry for that. Everything else I stand by, but I've appreciated the discussion. Thanks.

How big of a step is it to combine these types of laws with the "pre-pregnancy" garbage they were trying to push last year. Where all women of child bearing age should not drink, smoke and should take prenatal vitamins just in case they might get pregnant. It is not a large step to try to additionally attack someone with substance abuse issues of being a danger to their potential child, even if that potential child only exists in the mind of some idiot.

I have learned so much from this thread and wanted to thank everyone for that.

People have already beat me to this, but wanted to chime in. Jeff, for a self-described "male feminist," you are throwing around some loaded terms ("hysterics," "pro-abortion") pretty casually, which makes me wonder whether you're all that familiar with the full history of both the state AND the medical / psychiatric professions' infringements on women's rights, bodily integrity, and selfhood. You also use phrases like "If people want to get pregnant, do drugs, and abort it...", which also suggests a rather cynical and trivialized view of women's experience. In one breath, you make pregnancy, drug use, AND abortion sound like self-indulgent whims.

Charity, it's funny, but when you put it like that, life seems like a self-indulgent whim altogether!

Ice cream, cheese, hamburgers, gum, icees, gas, carpet, shoes...

Just self-indulgent whims...

Charity, it's funny, but when you put it like that, life seems like a self-indulgent whim altogether!

Ice cream, cheese, hamburgers, gum, icees, gas, carpet, shoes...

Just self-indulgent whims...

I didn't mean to double post.

Sorry!

It's still a radical concept to some that women, even pregnant women, are the only ones who should get to decide what happens to their bodies. Not men, other women, the state, whoever. Just the woman who is pregnant, or wants or does not want to get pregnant.

The woman builds the fetus from her blood and bone and tissue, at risk to herself. No one else takes that risk, therefore no one else gets to make her decisions for her. Inevitably some women will make bad decisions, but stripping all women of autonomy is not an acceptable answer. Remedying the situations that might lead, say, to a woman being a meth addict and pregnant (like treatment, early intervention, easy access to birth control, etc) is.

What really concerns me about all of this is the slippery slope argument (how much alcohol is too much, since it is legal), plus what about that prosciutto (which is uncooked ham) I fed my sister at her baby shower? Big oops, but if she wanted to eat prosciutto (or carpaccio, or sushi, or other raw meat) during her pregnancy, should that be illegal?

Turning to drug use during pregnancy, even assuming these laws were valid (and I don't think they are) where is the proof? I know we all remember the crack-baby hysteria of the 90's but it turned out to be false. As my family law textbook pointed out, the reason that developmental disability was found in so called crack babies is because they failed to control for the mothers' use of alcohol and nicotine, which do harm the baby in certain quantities and in certain women. Although babies born to drug addicted mothers do have lower birthrates, perhaps this is because the mother is, a drug addict? See e.g. http://www.cjr.org/issues/2004/5/voices-blake.asp

So perhaps we should do some peer-reviewed research before we assume that drugs or their metabolites are even capable of passing through the placenta and making it to the fetus.

Ismone

Sorry, that is lower birthweights. Not birthrates. If they are babies, clearly they are born.

More along the same lines, from Sarah Karp's article in the Chicago Reporter, February 2001:

"After studying substance-exposed children, researchers now say that these babies can develop as well as non-exposed babies from the same socio-economic background."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JAS/is_21_30/ai_73039563

Turns out the same may be true of meth babies according to this article by Barry Lester of The Progressive:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1295/is_12_69/ai_n15976247

The problem is, the early studies use animals such as rabbits, mice and rats whose placentas are different than ours. So drugs pass through to their fetuses that wouldn't get to ours. Plus, at the end of the day, they are rabbits, mice and rats.

"you are throwing around some loaded terms"

I'm a physics student. You should appreciate my efforts. I had to ask my roommate why the word "hysterics" generated so much animosity, and "pro-abortion" is my shorthand way of saying I don't have any philosophical moral issue with abortions whatsoever (ie, I don't subscribe to the whimpy arguments for abortion that give up ground). Certinaly there's a learning curve here.

Anyways, I was making a goal of avoiding the particulars, which have been brought up by many people and are very valid concerns, to try to take on a larger point that I think hasn't really been addressed other than 10 different iterations of "stay away from my body", which I dare say might be an oversimplication in this case.

I've also been appreciated of the legal education on the issue by law fairy, but despite my misuse of legal terms (I see why "child abuse" doesn't make sense here) I maintain that I have not seen a solid argument against some kind of legal consequences - in the most progressive, helpful, not-jail manner - of a woman who is using (I'll say "hard" drugs, for the sake of argument) drugs during pregnancy and intending to keep the child. I want people to stop and think about how cruel such an action is - carrying such a fetus to term, one that is much more statistically likely to have some kind of health problems, is easily as cruel as abusing a child.

Even rabbits, mice and rats behave differently when bred in captivity. They respond to medicine different and live under more stress than actual rabbits, mice and rats.

"I want people to stop and think about how cruel such an action is - carrying such a fetus to term, one that is much more statistically likely to have some kind of health problems, is easily as cruel as abusing a child."

The thing is, Jeff, we've thought about it--why would you assume we haven't? We just don't think that the law is the way to go about handling this situation, nor do we think that the answers are so clear-cult (cf. the withdrawal issue).

I maintain that I have not seen a solid argument against some kind of legal consequences - in the most progressive, helpful, not-jail manner - of a woman who is using (I'll say "hard" drugs, for the sake of argument) drugs during pregnancy and intending to keep the child.

Do you mean for drug use or for alcohol use? Because they're separate issues. If we're talking about drug use, the women CAN be punished for it. It's illegal to possess certain narcotics, regardless of whether or not you're pregnant.

But if the concern is that we as a society should worry about what's happening to the future baby, I guess I still don't see where the line is between these two things, and any other potentially harmful action undertaken by the woman. I understand that a line can be drawn. Here, I simply cannot see why where this particular line is drawn, is reasonable. Why are drugs and alcohol not okay, but prosciutto, coffee, and secondhand smoke are?

Let me be specific: I mean that it SHOULD BE DIFFERENT for a pregnant woman than a non-pregnant woman. Because I don't really know that drugs should be illegal at all for those of us who arn't pregnant, so I'm not very interested in the laws that already exist.

Acknowledging difficulty in drawing the line doesn't justify deciding not to draw one altogether. We draw all sorts of lines. It's why I can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, despite the first amendment - because civilized people are forced to draw lines, no matter how unpleasant it is. If you're trying to force me into it, I suppose I'd say I'd personally draw the line at binge drinking and "hard" (ie, not pot, caffine, prosciutto) drugs. But I guess I'd have to look at the research. In any case, defining the line has never been my point - the only argument I've set out to make is that there IS a line SOMEWHERE.

EG: If you're conceeding it's cruel then I suggest you come up with another example of another action that results in the cruel treatment of a child that is legal (read: not fetus. I mean an action that results in the cruel treatment of a child in the future, like setting a time-bomb in their bedroom). And I think I've been the one saying repeatedly the answer isn't clear-cut - those that are advocating the "clear-cut" answer are the ones saying they are perfectly free to mess up the life of a child.

I know how close my words here SOUND to pro-lifers' words, which I am vehemently not one. But don't be fooled by that, consider the point being made.

C-Bird, you're being ridiculous. I'm a self-described male feminist and I like to think I'm intellectually honest and a rational person, and the hysterics are unnecessary. --Jeff

The fact that women who are physically addicted to drugs are being put in jail (!!!) where they will get LESS healthcare and treatment is a concern. --C-bird

Treating women like incubators creates problems. Women who are struggling and in poverty are often drug addicts so the solution is alleviate poverty and treat people for the disease called drug addiction. Putting mothers in jail where pre-natal care is subpar is not the answer. You're also separating babies from their mothers.

"All that said, the analogy above clearly fails. Driving while intoxicated? A crime, because you can hurt someone. If you're going to have the kid, crime, because you can hurt it. "

Not really.

Drinking during pregnancy is more like drinking in a bar than drunk driving, since "If you're going to have the kid, crime, because you can hurt it" is more like "If you're going to drive home, crime, because you can hurt someone" would be.

"jeff, one problem is that this law doesn't make exceptions for women who intend to abort, but have not yet."

Exactly. Imagine an anti-drunk-driving law that lets police arrest people for drinking in pubs because it doesn't make exceptions for pubgoers who intend to go home with sober drivers, but have not yet...

"This isn't like abortion. If, at the age of 12, I realize I'm missing an arm (to use a silly false example) because mom was wasted while she was pregnant with me, I'm real pissed off about it..."

That's actually a really good point - in the (silly false) example you post, the 12-year-old's arm is missing from the 12-year-old's body and that is the fault of someone else.

"If the state can stop a person from abusing their children, surely it can have some interaction with a person who is in the process of creating a malformed child due to their actions."

What about deterrents via penalties for the actual crimes ("if you do commit X then you will get penalty Y") instead of penalties for other stuff which can but doesn't always lead to those crimes? If the state can pull over a drunk driver, should it surely have some interaction with a person who is in the process of getting drunk and might drive soon but might instead hail a taxi on purpose or pass out and spend the night by accident?

And pardon my French, Jeff, but Fuck You.

Thanks for clarifying, jeff.

And, I know you addressed the second half of your comment to EG, but with apologies to EG I think I'll horn in by noting that I think the analogy to something like a time bomb is faulty. Using drugs or alcohol, as numerous others here have noted, does not guarantee or even virtually guarantee that harm will come to the future child. Some here have noted people they knew who were not harmed by these supposedly "harmful" activities. One of my best friends from law school is a genius -- she graduated near the top of our class, with honors, having served on the law review, and after finishing her undergraduate studies at Yale in three years -- and her mother smoked and drank while pregnant. Anecdotal evidence aside, even the statistical evidence here is conflicted, as others have explicated better than I. Planting a time bomb in the child's room virtually guarantees that harm will come to the child. Drinking or doing drugs while pregnant seems to me much closer to declining optional immunizations for your child because, e.g., you don't want her learning about sex too early, or allowing your child to eat crap processed food and become obese (although I'd say this is worse for the kid than drugs/alcohol). These things are legal.

I am troubled by your admission that different legal rules should apply to pregnant versus non-pregnant women. This seems to me a concession that a pregnant woman *should* lose personal automony while she is pregnant. I'm truly having difficulty reconciling this with a pro-choice position. It seems to me that you have to think that a fetus has "rights" before it is born, in order to stake out this position. If it has a right to start out life healthy, how does it not have a right to start out life at all?

Jeff, pay attention. They haven't shown that at least two hard drugs (cocaine and meth) hurt babies. As I pointed out in my prior posts, they've shown that babies who were exposed to crack do no worse than babies from the same socioeconomic background who weren't.

So is it okay to go after pregnant women for legal activities like drinking and smoking? Because those do hurt babies, when done excessively.

What's the deal here?

I understand that this is a touchy subject, but are the personal attacks on Jeff really necessary? I mean, come on. He's got a point.

Here's a ghoulish solution that will send everyone into conniptions: mandate abortions for women who are found out to have consumed large amounts of drugs or alcohol or cigarettes or mercury-containing tuna and/or deli meats. It's just as ridiculous as saying that people shouldn't face some sort of consequences if they knowingly harm their fetus that they intend to carry to term.

Like Jeff, I'm not advocating screenings or invasive procedures, or criminal punishments for women who intend to abort, or considering all women of childbearing age to be "pre-pregnant," but if it can be proven that a mother's (or abusive partner's) actions harmed the fetus in utero, there should be some consequences. Not all people are fit to be parents, even if they can carry a fetus to term.

I feel as though some things I'm saying arn't being listened to. Several of the comments brought up in the last couple of posts I've addressed several times already, and being that it seems I've taken a minority position on this issue, it's a bit of a handful to repeat myself (I think my homework is suffering but hey, a good discussion is always a priority). I already noted my digust at the fact the law didn't include an exception for women who were going to abort - in fact, I noted my digust at the law in general, and yet the points are brought up again. This is a bad way to conduct a debate. I also conceeded that I didn't know exactly what drugs did what, only that some were very harmful, and that got brought up again.

There's been several points made about "it's not a sure thing, it's like someone drinking in a bar". A drunk driver isn't sure to hit someone. There's a risk. What's the likihood? 5%? 10%? I bet it's much less. So at what percentage of damage to the future child to we say, that's too much? What if I strike my current child? If there's only a 20% of leaving a bruise, is it ok? Only a 10% of the child suffering any mental trauma, does that make it ok?

donna darko: Thanks for the civility.

law fairy: Thanks for the civility, seriously.

It's just as ridiculous as saying that people shouldn't face some sort of consequences if they knowingly harm their fetus that they intend to carry to term.

Huh?

I don't see the similarity. Indeed, forcing abortions sounds more like telling women what not to do with their bodies like you appear to favor, just because they are pregnant. In both scenarios you are saying that the fact that a pre-human thing is sucking the life out of its future mother, and she is gracious enough to allow this, means that we should EVEN FURTHER disadvantage the woman in question and discount her personal autonomy and bodily integrity.

What is so confusing about the logical, clear, bright-line rule that you cannot tell women what to do with their bodies, SIMPLY because they happen to be pregnant? Put differently, a pregnant woman's body is no more the property of the state than a non-pregnant man's body is. If we tell men not to eat prosciutto, then I'll complain a lot less about telling women not to (though, to be clear, I'll still complain, because I fucking love prosciutto).

Prosciutto's fucking fantastic. I made this pasta the other night...

A pregnant woman's body is a pretty singular case. There's no other comparible situation. I think that the idea that the pregnant woman's body is no more property of the state than a man's is is wishful thinking - the case of an ideal world where one sex wasn't stuck with the bum deal of having to give birth. I want equality right up to the very last point where biology won't allow it - and whatever concessions can be made after that - and it's seems that's where we've arrived. The situation where a woman's actions WILL, with a significant likiness, have severe consequences for another person in the near future. I'm sad to have to say it - it is unfair, and the situation is colored by all varieties of crap women have to deal with that truly isn't fair. But I think this is the one case that isn't the fault of our patriarchy - it's just reality. It's the admission that as a responsible society we want to make a collective effort to avoid giving birth to sick children when we can choose to give birth to healthy ones.

I think what has kept me going on this is that it's philosophically fascinating, because it deals with the connections of actions between two different time periods when the fetus-later-child in question changes status. It's really wild stuff...

Anyhow, I should also point out that I read feministing pretty religiously and I never comment on stuff I agree with because I'd rather use my time with the rare instances that I don't agree. I just don't want to be treated as some kind of mole is all.

well, jeff, as others here have said, this is a REALLY emotional issue. And, to borrow from you -- it sucks that you're being treated differently because you're a man making these arguments, but the fact is that you have the luxury of knowing that you will never ever ever ever EVER be faced with the government bossing you around like a child, simply because you have a parasite living in your body. You have to admit, if there was any possibility that you might someday end up with an alien being inhabiting your body and draining your internal resources without apology, and were told that BECAUSE OF THIS you suddenly had less legal rights -- well, I imagine you'd approach this issue a little differently.

My feeling is it's best to be polite to others until they give me a reason not to be. But I can't quite fault others here for reacting emotionally. The only reason I don't, is because I have extensive training that helps me to beat down the emotion, so to speak, and get to the logical heart of an argument (lol, I make myself sound like a Vulcan). Of course, this shouldn't be taken as an indication that emotional reactions are less valid. Also, this means I'm probably badly in need of therapy ;)

ANYWAY. I want to address this point:

The situation where a woman's actions WILL, with a significant likiness, have severe consequences for another person in the near future.

I think I may have an arguable analogy where you would NEVER see the government dictating what MEN can do (though I'm still going to hold to the argument that pregnancy is far more burdensome, perhaps this will help you to see why this notion is so extremely extremely troubling to us "pre-pregnant" women (I know you didn't use this term)). Let's say that when a woman became pregnant, the government froze the soon-to-be father's assets. Since once the baby is born, he will bear financial responsibility for the baby, that's simply the only way we can ensure that he doesn't harm the baby. By virtue of impregnating a woman, he "owes it" to the fetus-baby to ensure that it has a decent start out in life. Therefore, he no longer has control of his finances, and how he spends his money will be strictly regulated. Any deviation that could harm the future baby's life prospects is impermissible. Thus, during the pregnancy, no gambling. No changing jobs, no matter how bad your job sucks. If you get fired and it's not due to discrimination or some other unlawful basis, you've broken the law. No vacations. No major "fun" purchases. Nothing that could possibly cut into the fetus' money supply. Since the fetus has rights (or the future child will have rights -- whichever you're more comfortable with semantically), you have an obligation to the fetus.

Doesn't this strike you as supremely unfair? How can the government possibly justify such an invasion into an individual's autonomy? The government could base this on concern for the fetus' well-being, just as plausibly as it can tell pregnant women not to drink/do drugs. Why doesn't the government enact these regulations as well?

I apologize for my outburst, Jeff, but alcoholic and drug addicted mothers are often struggling. Many are probably also sex workers to make ends meet. There also hasn't been enough research on men's effect on defective sperm. I like to focus on prevention of poverty, marginalized women's access to reproductive health and drug addiction (i.e. treatment).

Jeff,

My aim in bringing up prosciutto is not to suggest that you are in the pocket of some devious anti-prosciutto group, or engage in reductio ad absurdem. The point is, we have better research that eating raw meat during pregnancy endangers fetal health than we do that smoking illegal drugs does.

The drugs that we know harm babies are legal. Monitoring someone's use of a legal drug to ensure fetal health is really problematic. First, you are punishing legal conduct. Second, the only way to "catch" a woman who was drinking would be to constantly monitor her. Alcohol passes out of you pretty quick like. And how much is too much? What if she works in a smoky bar in one of those states that doesn't have a smoking ban? Criminalizing otherwise legal conduct seems really problematic.

This argument is not happening in a vacuum.

Also, as donna darko points out, what about the things men do that harm the quality of their sperm? I don't know what studies have been done, but I can tell you two activities that prevent men from fathering sons (Y sperm are more fragile than X)--working in certain kinds of chemistry labs and pulling g's regularly, say, as a fighter pilot.

Before we go about punishing people for gamete or zygote abuse, perhaps we should find out exactly what we're dealing with.

Also, most of the time when they throw these women in jail, that is really bad for fetal health. There are some disturbing exposes about prison healthcare, particularly in women's prisons.

I maintain that I have not seen a solid argument against some kind of legal consequences - in the most progressive, helpful, not-jail manner - of a woman who is using (I'll say "hard" drugs, for the sake of argument) drugs during pregnancy and intending to keep the child.

Jeff - here's one. Despite all we (modern humans, I mean) know about human biology, fetal development, etc., the amount we do not know still far outstrips what we do know. All of the advice pregnant women are given on how to maintain a healthy pregnancy? Guesswork and odds-making. It's all, "there's an increased risk of this" and "a lower chance of that", but there are very very few places where an OB can tell a woman, "Okay, if you do XYZ, it will effect the fetus in ABC fashion, guaranteed."

The research we've done is, as others have mentioned, incomplete and occasionally misleading. The advice pregnant women are given is constantly changing ("fish is a great source of protein and 'the good fats!" and then a couple years later, "be very careful what fish and how much of it you eat for fear of PCB/mercury contamination"), culturally based (women in the U.S. are advised against eating sushi - what do we think pregnant women in Japan eat?) and often contradictory ("avoid taking medications, even over-the-counter headache medications, during pregnancy, but once you're in labor, we're going to give you a powerful narcotic that's going to leave your baby sleepy and wacked out for a few days.").

The thing is, even in the worst case - a stillborn baby with drugs in its system - there is often no way to /prove/ "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that it was the drugs in the baby's system (i.e. the mother's drug use) that caused it to be stillborn. There are hundreds of reasons that baby could have been stillborn, and while it seems we all agree that the mother's drug use is /likely/ to effect the fetus' development, we have no way of proving for sure. For all we know, the drugs didn't harm the baby at all, but the mother living in an apartment above the bus terminal breathing exhaust fumes for nine months did.

If proving that it is "likely" that someone robbed my house is not sufficient to convict them of burglary (at least, when our system of justice functions the way it is supposed to), then proving that it is "likely" that a pregnant woman's drug addiction harmed her fetus should not be sufficient to put her in jail either.

"There's been several points made about "it's not a sure thing, it's like someone drinking in a bar". A drunk driver isn't sure to hit someone. There's a risk. What's the likihood? 5%? 10%? I bet it's much less. So at what percentage of damage to the future child to we say, that's too much?"

I wasn't thinking of the percent of damage but thinking of the way someone drinking at a bar isn't sure to become a drunk driver in the first place, like the way a pregnant woman may get an abortion or miscarry instead of having a child in the first place.

I think by sticking with this I've seen a lot more convincing reasons why it may not be reasonable to have any law regarding this. Still, a couple of points.

Most things have some element of guesswork. The science, on, say, global warming isn't 100% totally agreed upon but it is for the most part and you'd better believe I ride the bus because of it. Likewise, we may not know for exact certain the outcomes of what drug use does what - and for sure this is relevent, and "we don't have good enough information now" may be a strong enough argument, but I guess I'll avoid that road.

Law fairy: the analogy you made to men seems relevent. The difference I'd note is that monetary things can be corrected after the fact. If I have a child and I'm so incredibly broke I can't afford it, it will end up in a foster home. This is bad for the child for sure. How bad? Worse than the results of certain drug use? I guess it's hard to say. But then, I might not be completely opposed to a lesser extreme of what you suggest. Eg, that they make me set aside 10% of my paycheck or something.

Donna: I had no idea I could make my sperm defective. That's fascinating. I guess it's time for some wikipedia.

Jeff, I do applaud you in continuing to engage in this discussion, although I'm a little confused by your "you should appreciate my efforts" comment in response to my post...as if that should not be a two-way street, or as if being a physics student precludes knowledge of what feminism is and under what sociohistorical circumstances it developed. My discipline is not women's studies or some variant of that either, but if i, as you, want to use a label to describe myself as aligning with a political, cultural, or social movement or set of ideas, it's only fair that i know the basics, or if I don't do my homework, it's only fair that I don't cry foul when i'm corrected. We do appreciate your efforts, but "hysteria" is not really so much an obscure or buried "chapter" in the "story" of feminism that we automatically assume a self-proclaimed "feminist" wouldn't know about it. If you really want to "learn," you in turn should appreciate the identification of loaded terms from posters here. You didn't encounter "animosity" in response to "hysterics," you encountered comments like, "that was lousy" and "I don't appreciate that," and "you're throwing around some loaded terms."

In case you weren't aware, but maybe are if you do indeed frequent this site, there are often self-described "well-meaning" posters (whether male or female) whose tone is, "I don't get why this is a feminist issue" or "I don't get so-and-so, can someone please explain it to me," under a guise of curiosity, but then summarily rejects any and all subsequent explanations and otherwise demonstrates they were not really open to considering other viewpoints at all, and often turns downright patronizing or abusive. So we may be wary of new threads that begin, and continue, in the same, "honestly curious" way.

Sorry, my "you should appreciate my efforts" comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek. I spend most of my days, and really always have, around people who have no clue what feminism even is. I think that for the most part I've done my research, and I appreciate being made aware of words that have more weight than they would in their usual contexts.

And I've encountered the types of commenters you're referring to before, the ones who start out "curious" and end up nothing but trouble, on blogs where I'm a bit more in my element, and I assure you I have no such attitude in mind.

Here is what I see as the issue: Are pregnant women's constitutional rights the same as everyone else's? There are rights that we have that may cause harm to other people, or put limits on prosecutors' ability to imprison someone simply because the proof isn't there. Sometimes the guilty go free because of procedural flaws.

But these rights are protected for a reason, and I am troubled that "we" are so willing to limit these rights for one class of people: Pregnant women. Women have been forced to have cesarean sections against their will. Doctors have gotten court orders to have the police seize pregnant women and cut them open because the doctor thought it was in the best interest of the fetus. One woman was prosecuted for murder for refusing to have a c-section.
http://www.advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/issues/court_ordered_interventions/

But no one can force you to donate an organ: even if it means another person will die and even if that other person is your own child. That is the degree to which our constitution protects the right to bodily autonomy. I am going to try to link to my presentation which lays out the constitutional violations that occur in these prosecutions in a bit. Thanks for everyone's comments and interest.

Thank you for your cogent writing, Jill!

Jeff, I acknowledge that there is a significant chance that the future child can be hurt by the pregnant woman's actions--I assume that's what you mean by "cruelty." You seem to be positing a set-up in which a woman, out of sheer nastiness, does self-destructive things in a spiteful attempt to hurt her future child. In doing so, you're revealing yourself to be quite ignorant of how and why people engage in self-destructive behaviors. This law posits a one-size-fits-all solution: jail. I am not in favor of criminalizing self-destructive behavior, because I don't think that it's helpful, and by the way, that impinges on women's human rights. If you're arguing in favor of an outreach program dedicated to helping women get off drugs and get the help they need to put their lives on a better path, I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with the idea that such a program should or could be compulsory. If the program is compulsory, the woman's basic agency is being denied--how much trust could she place in such a program?

Now, as to this: "I suggest you come up with another example of another action that results in the cruel treatment of a child that is legal"

There's plenty of cruelty that's legal--emotional abuse is legal, for instance. But I assume you want something physical. Fine. I know my child is diabetic, but my religious beliefs preclude insulin injections. I stand by and pray, and watch my child go into a diabetic coma and die. As far as I know, this is legal. It's legal because this country takes the right to freedom of religion incredibly seriously (it's also legal because children have very very few rights of their own, I might add).

Why then does this country take women's right to bodily autonomy so much less seriously? Why should I have to relinquish any basic human rights when I get pregnant? Pregnant women are human beings, not incubators.

I think that Jill coherently put into words what I was trying to get at. However, if we see someone doing harm to themselves, pregnant or not, we should try to help them, not just say "it's their right to do whatever they want to their bodies" and walk away, right?

Do they want help?
Do you have a cure for addiction, i.e. can you provide viable help? Or will you be just one more person trying to control that woman?

I took a great class on gender and biology and I read a segment about how the few studies that actually reserarched the effect of male drug and alcohol use on their sperm and babies did show correlations. Isn't it funny how all the attention is on the pregnant women? Like, men send forth perfect sperm and if the baby has any birth defects, it must be because the mother had a drink, smoked a smoke, watched a scary movie, exercised too strenuously, ate lunch meat, drank a cappucino, etc. I know it sounds like I am trivializing, but these are all activities I have engaged in while pregnant and been reprimanded for. My kids are healthy, intelligent, and fabulous.

Stress has a greater negative effect on a fetus than many other things. Think about that the next time you see a person, who is pregnant, engaging in an activity you find unsuitable. Odds are, she very well may have done some research and found the activity to be acceptably safe.

If you criminalize drinking and drug use while pregnant, like the article says, women will avoid getting prenatal care. Prenatal care is immportant.

I have known women who considered abortion in part because of drug use prior to knowing they were pregnant. Their doctors told them not to worry about it. From what I have read, being well nourished and otherwise healthy is one of the main things to growing a healthy baby. If women don't get the prenatal care, they might not find access to proper nutrition, etc. and the baby could suffer worse consequences than from drug or alcohol effects themselves.

I am not advocating to take up a drug habit while you are pregnant, I'm just saying, get some solid information on the issue. And please realize that women are not solely responsible for any fetal defects-- although the media and mainstream society focuses exclusively on controlling women during pregnancy.

This is one of those issues in which I just cannot seem to figure out which direction is the right direction to go on. I am very conflicted. I knew a girl who died recently, at 24, who was born with fetal alcohol syndrome. Her case was probably a more extreme case, but she was never able to be a functioning member of society or anything. Her birth mother did put her up for adoption, no telling if she'd have lived to 24 otherwise, but I just don't know. I do know that much of this is simply a way of getting in under the radar for the anti-abortion folks, and that is something I cannot agree with at all.

Jeff wrote: "Let me be specific: I mean that it SHOULD BE DIFFERENT for a pregnant woman than a non-pregnant woman. Because I don't really know that drugs should be illegal at all for those of us who arn't pregnant, so I'm not very interested in the laws that already exist."

In the legal context that exists now, your position that the law should be different for pregnant women vs. other humans is equivalent to saying that pregnancy is a state-granted privilege, rather than a right (akin to driving, for instance).

I don't believe that law fairy is correct in saying that your position would criminalize the status of pregnancy anymore than laws against drunk driving criminalize the status of driving.

But it absolutely *would* treat pregnancy as a privilege, and one over the which the state has regulatory control. I'm not sure that's a precedent you want to set unless you're not only anti-abortion, but also willing to put in play a bunch of very icky steps down the totalitarian slope like enforced abortions, sterilization or breeding.

I think we're on much safer political philosophy ground if we treat a woman's body as *hers*, and consider her to have a natural and inalienable right to become pregnant or terminate her pregnancy or otherwise control her reproductive status at will with no interference whatsoever from the government, unless she is carrying a fetus that could conceivably live outside her womb.

That's my line anyway (at which I'm willing to even *consider* government regulation), and I've seen no good reason not to hold it absolutely.

If the point of this legislation were to punish people who "abuse children" by risking having a baby who is unhealthy, then what about those who, due to testing during pregnancy, know for a fact that their fetus, if allowed to develop and be born, will have health problems? Abortion is legal and, theoretically, available; they are making a conscious choice to have unhealthy children. Why is this ok?

The answer is that this legislation is not about any definition of child abuse, but (as everyone already knows, anyhow) an attempt to give fetuses (more than) the rights of born people.

Not only the illegal drugs but legal drugs are also abusive in nature and could also result in drug addiction problem in humans. Legal drugs when take without prescription from doctors sometimes becomes the cause for addictive behavior.