Drug abuse in pregnancy isn't child abuse, Pa. court rules

[left-of-center2012]

Pennsylvania’s highest court says mothers who use illegal drugs while pregnant can’t be considered perpetrators of child abuse against their newly born children under the state’s child protection law.

The court's main opinion issued Friday says the law's definition of a child doesn't include fetuses or unborn children, and it says victims of perpetrators must be children.

Two justices who dissented say what should matter is when the injury manifests itself, and that can be after the child is born.

The case involves a child who spent 19 days in Williamsport Hospital last year after birth being treated for drug dependence that caused severe withdrawal symptoms. The mother’s lawyer calls the decision a victory for public health and the rights of women and children.

https://www.pennlive.com/news/2018/12/drug-abuse-in-pregnancy-isnt-child-abuse-pa-court-rules.html

[AllyCat]

1. It isn't. These women need HELP. They have no power over their addiction

[tymorial]

3. Being powerless over ones addiction does not excuse. It explains why.

I will add that needing help is meaningless. Addicts may need help but only those who want help take steps towards recovery

[moriah]

7. ... when seeking help automatically makes the person flagged as an abuser, though...

... it makes it unlikely that even women who want help will try to get it through medical channels.

And PA's legislature isn't helping the situation either.

http://www.lockhaven.com/news/local-news/2018/07/pa-lawmakers-act-to-help-drug-exposed-infants/

They now must notify DHS regarding infants affected by substance use, withdrawal or FASD, but the language of the bill removes the mother’s role and includes drugs that were prescribed to the mother by a health care professional to treat substance abuse, like methadone.

So now even medication prescribed by a doctor to keep the mother from using illegal drugs are reason to have a DHS case opened on the family? Worse and worse for getting pregnant women to actually seek a physician's help in battling addictions.

[virgogal]

11. I smoked during all of my pregnancies,and

had an occasional drink.

There are those who would now consider that child abuse.

[handmade34]

2. good...

(not using drugs when pregnant) ...but the wisdom of the court to not see a fetus or unborn as a child

[WhiskeyGrinder]

4. Good, for a variety of reasons.

[Claritie Pixie]

5. This is the appropriate interpretation of the child protection law.

Fetuses are not children and religious beliefs have no place in our laws.

Now if the mother continues to use drugs after the baby is born, the law can be enforced.

[Iggo]

6. Wow.

Pleasantly surprised.

[mr_lebowski]

8. Believe it or not the prevailing medical wisdom is that past a certain point in the pregnancy

At least with opioids and certain other classes of drugs like Benzos, it's considered safer for a pregnant drug-addicted mother to NOT 'get clean' while pregnant, but rather to maintain their drug usage until the fetus is born.

Reason being that doctors have a lot more treatment options for dealing with the withdrawal symptoms in the baby directly.

This is obviously a tough moral question ... nobody wants to think of a newborn suffering in it's first days and weeks on the planet. But I believe this clearly the CORRECT decision, legally-speaking.

That said, OPTIMALLY, it would be REALLY REALLY easy for drug-dependent women who become pregnant ... to have access to cheap abortions at the earliest possible stage.

Or even better ... for them to have easy and cheap access to birth control in the first place.

One thing that happens often in these situations, and often sadly, is that drug-dependent women find out they're pregnant, and believe that this going to provide some kind of 'salvation' for them. They've been 'looking for a way out' of addiction for months or years, and hoping for some kind of 'spark' to force themselves to get clean. They end up looking at the pregnancy as a 'sign', and a 'hope' for themselves to get back on track.

SOMETIMES it works, too. Sometimes it is exactly what the woman needed. And maybe her partner too.

But when it doesn't work out that way? It really sucks.

[bitterross]

9. Further criminalizing addiction is not the answer.

These women need assistance. Not jail time.

The other issue at hand here is legitimizing the notion of fetal person-hood. Recognizing an unborn entity as a full human who has the rights and privileges of an actual, live, breathing, post-womb, person is fraught with problems.

[Arkansas Granny]

10. I'll admit to being a little torn on this one and I realize there are no easy answers.

I understand the reasoning behind not classifying a fetus as a child, but when a woman decides to carry a pregnancy to term, she has made a commitment and should be prepared to take steps to insure the most favorable outcome for the delivery of a healthy infant. That includes getting adequate prenatal care and abstaining from activities and/or drugs that could damage the developing fetus.

That being said, a woman should not be treated as a criminal if she seeks help with a dependency issue during pregnancy.

I realize that this could be a "slippery slope" argument and that a broad interpretation of child endangerment law could result in pregnancies being so rigidly controlled by the legal system that women could be seen as no more than biological incubators.

Just a personal observation. I've known women who abused drugs and/or alcohol during pregnancy. Most of them were neglectful and sometimes abusive parents. If a woman has an addiction problem during pregnancy, it doesn't magically go away after birth. At this point there is a child involved. If the addiction could be identified and treated during pregnancy, there might be a better outcome for all parties involved.