h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Way to go America for making pregnant women criminals for having a drug addiction... in any civilised country (sorry any american h2g2 folk) they would be treated for having an illness.




http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=18321


"Whitner had given birth to a healthy baby who tested positive for an illegal drug. Based on extrapolation of the state feticide law, Ms. Whitner was convicted of criminal child abuse. At sentencing Ms. Whitner begged for drug treatment. The judge responded, "I think I'll just let her go to jail." "


"Regina McKnight was an indigent 22-year-old woman with a drug problem. She became pregnant and despite her problems had every hope of carrying her pregnancy to term, but the pregnancy ended in stillbirth. The hospital reacted not by offering her counseling or drug treatment, but rather by helping build a criminal case against her. Eventually she was convicted of murder.

The South Carolina Medical Association and other leading health groups concluded that there was no evidence that McKnight's drug use caused the stillbirth. Moreover, no one in this case, not even the prosecution, believed that McKnight had any intention of harming the fetus or losing the pregnancy. Had McKnight intentionally sought to end her pregnancy by having an illegal third trimester abortion, her sentence would have been two years in jail – but because of a law similar to the bill President Bush just signed, she is today serving a 12-year sentence."

I'm going to ask what may be an obvious question: if the prosecution didn't think she meant to harm her child, then a) why did they follow through with a trial b) what evidence to the contrary was presented?

Not making any value judgements - just wondering.

My first reaction was -

guys, but I think that's fair.

Do you think she shouldn't be help responsible for her actions? It's just like women who smoke and drink during pregnancy: if their children turn out to have behavioural/health problems, it's the mother fault as they put their unborn foetus in danger whilst pregnant, so therefore they should be jailed for child abuse.

HOWEVER -

>>>"The South Carolina Medical Association and other leading health groups concluded that there was no evidence that McKnight's drug use caused the stillbirth. Moreover, no one in this case, not even the prosecution, believed that McKnight had any intention of harming the fetus or losing the pregnancy."<<<

You made a point of saying this. If no one believes the drug use caused the stillbirth, then how is it her fault? That's stupid.

Also :

>>>"Had McKnight intentionally sought to end her pregnancy by having an illegal third trimester abortion, her sentence would have been two years in jail"<<<

Perhaps it might have been wiser to not get up the duff whilst battling a drug addiction. She could have saved a whole heap of trouble by using birth control.

>>>"– but because of a law similar to the bill President Bush just signed, she is today serving a 12-year sentence."<<<

Again, this makes no sense to me. I am confused. Is it now illegal to miscarry a child? If everyone's concluded that her drug use didn't lead to the stillbirth, why is she in jail?

This would make sense if it were the opposite - that they said her drug use contributed to the death of the foetus. In which case, I would be fine with her going to jail. Intention or not, drug addiction whilst pregnant is knowingly endangering a child. There is no excuse for it, and I refuse to support people like that. But they aren't.

*falls over* Stupid stupid stupid.

On the subject of being responsible for one's actions, yes I believe that we all should be. In an ideal world.
However, people who suffer from drug addiction should, in my opinion, be treated for the addiction that they suffer, not penalised for it.

"Do you think she shouldn't be help responsible for her actions? It's just like women who smoke and drink during pregnancy: if their children turn out to have behavioural/health problems, it's the mother fault as they put their unborn foetus in danger whilst pregnant, so therefore they should be jailed for child abuse."

I work in a drug project, and have had pregnant clients who are still taking heroin and/or methadone and it's heartbreaking. However, it's often more cruel to the baby to cut all substances out completely in one foul swoop as they can go into withdrawal. Not to mention the mother.


Anway, it's my belief that a mother should have more rights that those of her child - after all, until the child is born it is a potential person: the mother is a person already.

Where do you draw the line on substances? Caffeine is a poison, as is most fast food, but you wouldn't get arrested for imbibing those whilst pregnant.

As for the bits that I quoted, I did that to try and sum up the article for those who didn't want to have to open the link.



"Perhaps it might have been wiser to not get up the duff whilst battling a drug addiction. She could have saved a whole heap of trouble by using birth control."

OK, what about the fact that people with a drug addiction may be unable to comtemplate birth control? Pretty far from ideal, but it happens.
Also women with drug addictions often don't believe that they will become pregnant due to their menstrual cycle being erratic/non-existent.
And that's not even mentioning those women who are addicted getting pregnant due to abuse or rape.

My point being, shouldn't people have help for their addictions rather than being penalised for them?


I take it that you understand little about addiction Satunine, otherwise you wouldn't make such un-informed statements.

"drug addiction whilst pregnant is knowingly endangering a child" - maybe, but have you ever suffered an addiction? For addicts, their addiction is their primary concern and everyone else (including themselves)is of little importance - but this doesn't mean that they are *intentionally* hurting their child, they just need help!

You are incorrect, because a foetus is not yet a child, in the sense that it can't survive without the mother. If the mother is damaging herself with drug abuse then that may well have an effect on the parts of her that are growing the foetus.

But it's certainly not comparable to, say, giving crack to a newborn baby -- which is really f****d up and yes, should be punished.

That's a crazy state of affairs. Presumably she wanted the baby and was devestated when it died. To convict her of child abuse or murder is sick. An addiction is not something you can shrug off or walk away and leave without a great deal of physical and emotional effort. Just telling to pull their socks up and stop because they're pregnant is never going to work. Your body is telling you that you *need* the drug or substance. I can understand how the craving could over-ride the maternal considerations. I'll bet my backside that there isn't a support network to help women in that situation either.

What is even scarier is that a law like that is leaving the door wide open to start convicting women who have had an abortion of murder. An embryo isn't a child - it's got the potential to be one but it's not there yet. (And I concede that not everyone will agree with me on that point.) To pass laws defining what you can or can't do whilst pregnant is to erode a woman's right to choose what she does with her body and that is just plain wrong.

For anyone who thinks this law is great I would recommend reading Margaret Atwood's A Handmaids Tale and being very, very afraid.

This is appalling, if it is as you say. If someone is really addicted, they need *treatment* - this should be obvious.

Is this likely to stop other drug-addicted women taking drugs when they find out they are pregnant? No. In which case it's a waste of time. Although I do consider that once conceived a child has a right to life, and that continuing to do anything that harms that tiny life is abuse, this isn't the way to deal with it.

This is just another example of the erosion of women's rights in the States. Which is a sweeping statement but that is my first gut reaction.

Addiction isn't a criminal action, although it is true that addicts often turn to illegal means to obtain their substance of addiction. Convicting these women, when in all liklihood they are already suffering terribly from the loss of their children, is needless and pointless. First, how seriously is an addict going to take prison? And we need have no doubt that they will be able to feed their addictions inside - they would have been better being sentenced to rehab. And as Mina said, where's the deterrant? Simply put: there isn't one.

It's just another way of making the people who believe that as soon as the egg splits into two cells the foetus/embryo has more rights than the mother feel good about their beliefs.

It is a very small step from this to the pregnancy police getting involved with pregnant women who drink coffee, coke or anything else like that. What about pregnant women who eat french fries... beef, shellfish... drink unpasturised milk? (some of which I did when I was pregnant, along with the very odd, very small glass of - with the blessing of my OB/GYN)