Pubdate: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 Source: Amarillo Globe-News (TX) Copyright: 2000 Amarillo Globe-News Contact: P.O. Box 2091, Amarillo, TX 79166 Fax: (806) 373-0810 Website: http://amarillonet.com/ Forum: http://208.138.68.214:90/eshare/server?action=4 Authors: William H. Sewald, Virgil Van Camp POINT-COUNTERPOINT: SHOULD PREGNANT DRUG ADDICTS BE PROSECUTED FOR 'HARMING' THEIR UNBORN CHILDREN? What'S Next Step? A Police State? To The Left By William H. Seewald The U.S. Supreme Court will decide in a landmark case this year, Ferguson vs. South Carolina, the constitutionality of a South Carolina law allowing the arrest of pregnant crack cocaine users who, without their permission, are tested for drug use when seeking medical care. This one's troubling for several reasons, not least of all the ongoing erosion of the Fourth Amendment, our one-time constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure. The likelihood of actually protecting any children is much less evident in this law than is the presence of simply one more of the so-called Right to Life movement's ceaseless efforts to support any legal doctrine that trumps a woman's constitutional protections in favor of the fetus. So far the courts have ultimately refused to do that. There's considerable evidence that alcohol abuse is much more debilitating than cocaine so far as the fetus is concerned. In the interest of brevity, we shall sidestep the issue that this is another of the cocaine laws having a disproportionate, unjust impact on black mothers. If the objective really is to protect children, criminalizing addiction and compromising the doctor-patient relationship by demanding that medical professionals become law-enforcement agents makes the likelihood of constructive intervention even more remote. It simply ensures that mothers and their children will do without medical care rather than become ensnared in the tactics of a police state. Since the days of the Nixon administration, including particularly unenlightened policies of the current administration, America has persisted in criminalizing the medical problem of addiction. We build more prisons and fill them up with drug abusers, spending a fraction on treatment that we spend on law enforcement in the "war on drugs." Right here in Texas, our Gov. Dubya, proving that he is in considerable personal denial about the realities of addiction, has presided over the elimination of pilot programs started in the Texas Department of Corrections - ones proven to work in changing addictive behavior. "Lock em up!" - that's the ticket if Daddy can't intervene, or a lawyer to get the record expunged isn't an option. If we actually ever demonstrate a national commitment to protecting children and doing something about drug addiction beyond pandering to stereotypes, we will first of all ensure that every child is a wanted child. Teaching the realities of parenting and the necessary skills, family planning, and birth control are the keystones of such a commitment, not police arrests. Conservatives are right when they talk about personal responsibility and demanding cooperation - even a quid pro quo - from recipients of aid. But those are unrealistic expectations when government perpetuates the problems, denying birth control to sexually active children, prohibiting federal funding of abortions for poor women and failing to ensure that all schools have adequate sex education programs. Locking up addicts, criminalizing medical problems and hewing to programs designed to better serve the denial system of parents than the real needs of children doom us to ever-increasing numbers born into distress and ever-bigger prison bills. We're just as divorced from reality as the crack users. William H. Seewald can be contacted in care of the Amarillo Globe-Times, P.O. Box 2091, Amarillo, Texas 79166, or ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Children's Bill Of Rights Might Help To The Right By Virgil Van Camp The war on drugs probably has had more adverse affect on our civil rights than any other government action in our history. The effort to banish the very real scourge of substance abuse from our society has filled our prisons with nonviolent offenders and extended police powers to dangerous levels. The U.S. Supreme Court will soon hear a drug case that has troubling constitutional implications about a broad spectrum of the Bill of Rights. It involves women arrested in hospitals for drug abuse detected as part of the admissions and treatment process. These women had routinely signed consent forms presented to them granting that test results could be used in this fashion. The fact that many of the patients were from the bottom end of social and economic classes and many were minorities has some bearing on the issue. How often have you signed without reading, under the same conditions, forms that were handed to you? So far, there can be little discussion among right-thinking folk about this practice. It's wrong. However, like most of life's problems, there are enough shades of gray to paint a battleship. The case that the Supremes will hear has to do with pregnant women. There is now a third party, the fetus, who might or might not be a human being or have rights, depending on the circumstances. On the one hand, abortion has been declared a right at all stages of pregnancy. Even partial-birth abortion has been found legal. Yet, when the fetus takes its first breath, it becomes a human and supposedly is protected by the law that governs the rest of us, particularly laws pertaining to child abuse and neglect. The arrests in question also are justified by South Carolina's laws against child endangerment and distribution of drugs to a minor. Society has a real and vital obligation to protect newborns. Babies who are born addicted have a very poor start in life, mentally and physically. They almost always will become wards of the foster care system, either because they are abandoned by their mother or from later neglect. Jail during pregnancy might prevent babies being born addicted, but starting life in prison doesn't appear to be a good alternative. Possibly what we need is a children's bill of rights: to be wanted and loved; to have two stable parents; to have the best prenatal care and a supportive community. I might be accused of being a Nazi, but maybe there should be some program to prevent such women from having babies. Before all the pro-life and anti-birth control groups get on my case, let me make this suggestion: Sign up to adopt a few crack babies and other kids in foster care. When all have loving homes, then organize to promote your political agenda. - --- MAP posted-by: Terry Liittschwager