While I agree with you, I can imagine that the supporters of these laws would argue that this is no different than laws that prevent child abuse and neglectful parents. Debating this sort of thing with any pro-lifer is nigh-impossible because we have entirely different conceptions of where/when/how life begins. If a pro-lifer believes that a fetus is the same as any child, then not having these laws seems unconscionable. The problem remains of bridging that gap of understanding...

In light of the recent "breast is best" monstrosity that the government is touting, this all comes down to one giant slippery slope.

Of course, this also raises the question: What impact will criminalizing pregnant women have on their children? If you put a woman in jail or on probation, that will affect her employability in some cases. All because someone wants to criminalize an individual's behavior.

I had this same debate with a co-worker about 5 months ago. He made the exact argument Bryan McKay brought up. However, I thing male privelege factored more in his argument because he was decidedly pro-choice in every other respect.

My argument was based on my knowledge of addiction. My mother is a functioning alcoholic and has been for 15 years. As Jessica said, these women need to be treated just like any other patient with a chronic, progessive, life-threatening disease. I'm terrified of the slippery slope. What if someone thinks a woman isn't eating the "right way" when she's pregnant? Are we going to slap a woman in jail for eating a cheeseburger? Truly, where does it stop?

Frau, would a mother (or father) be prosecuted in court for giving their children a cheeseburger?

On the other hand, would a mother (or father) possibly be prosecuted in a court of law for giving their children a cigarette, alcohol or drugs?

I think that is the differance.

Eshew Obfuscation, while your hypotehtical seems totally outlandish (and you clearly expect an answer of 'no' to your rhetorical questions), it's actually not so unfathomable. Laws like the one proposed in Arkansas serve to further subjugate the rights of women to the "rights" of the fetuses they carry. It wasn't too long ago that laws like the one we're discussing would have been laughed off as ridiculous.

Julie, Eschew's second rhetorical would actually be answered with a resounding 'yes.' A parent would most certainly be prosecuted for giving their child drugs. A pregnant woman who does drugs might as well be giving them to her child. That is where he/she is making the comparison between existing laws against child endangerment, etc. with the proposed legislation.

Hell, forget about the cheeseburger--a pregnant woman shouldn't be riding in a car to get to the fast food joint--that child is not in a protective seat--the slightest accident will kill the fetus, and we certainly can not have that at all costs, so she damn well better be staying home.

Bryan, you're right about the second question, and about why the answer is a resounding 'yes.' I was reacting to the first one. I should have been clearer.

South Carolina is perhaps the worst offender in the prosecution of pregnant women for drug use during pregnancy. It is the only state in the country that has created a special exception making a fetus a person for the purposes of child abuse statutes, thus allowing the state to charge women who use drugs while pregnant with child abuse and neglect.

What's more, states around the country, led by South Carolina, are charging women with murder for giving birth to stillborn children, whether due to lack of prenatal care, drug use during pregnancy, or refused c-section.

Laws like the one proposed in Arkansas are a symptom of a broader, more insidious problem.

The United States has the first world's highest infant mortality rate. Why do I have trouble taking seriously American politicians' attempts to proclaim they're for babies' health when they refuse to do anything that addresses the real problem?

Frau, I've only seen pregnant women smoke a few times...

Everytime I've been disgusted to the point of wanting to see them IN JAIL.

I've never been disgusted by a pregnant woman eating a cheeseburger. The two actions are incomparable (imo).

EO, "it disgusts me" isn't good enough a basis to inform political policy. Personally, I get disgusted when people smoke, regardless of whether they're pregnant; it doesn't mean I support banning smoking in private homes.

The reasoning behind my disgust is a reason to make it a matter of public policy.

Smoking while pregnant can and does harm to a fetus. This results in higher medical bills being passed on to insurance companies. This results in higher insurance rates being paid by the general public. Not to mention the unfair decrease in the quality of life for the baby once it is born.

As far as doing drugs is concerned, the ill effects are even greater.

The reason it disgusts me is not because I think it is a gross habit, it is because it is a gross and dangerous habit being forced upon someone (before they are even born nonetheless) without their consent and by the person that is DESIGNED to protect that person.

That's why I find it sickening and think it should definitely be illegal.

As far as the rediculous assertion that when a pregnant woman drives she is doing something illegal because the child isn't in a car seat...in that instance the pregnant woman herself IS technically the car seat. (And I'd have to say most likely is better engineered to protect her child in the case of accident)

As far as the ill effects on a child by punishing their mother for this type of behavior, what about the ill effects of finding out that your mother cared so little for your life that she chose to smoke cigarettes, booze it up and smoke crack while you were in the developmental stages of being a fetus.

I think psychologically, that would be far more damaging.

This has been bothering me all day. I asked my boyfriend what he thought, and he said, "Good for the baby, bad for the mother."

This is clearly just political posturing designed to make the govt appear pro-child and pro-family. However, I would liken it to making suicide illegal. It doesn't deal with any of the underlying issues, but by making it a crime, absolves the govt of any responsibility to provide support to the people involved.

I find it hard to believe a pregnant woman would smoke, drink, or do drugs, because she genuinely wants to hurt her baby. It's more likely a function of addiction, stress, and a lack of awareness of the harm it will cause. For instance, there seemed to be a rather high incidence of children with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome where I was from, and I therefore understood EXACTLY what the effects of alcohol on an unborn fetus would be. (Worst case scenario: 15 year old girl murders her elderly foster mother because she lacks the ability to tell right from wrong.) When I moved, I discovered that most people are not familiar with FAS in such a sensationalized way, or often at all. They know it hurts fetuses somehow, but not the details.

Now, given the fact that children who were prenatally exposed to drugs can be predisposed to such problems later in life, does the govt need to step in? In my opinion, yes, but as I said before, it should be in a supportive role, not a punishing one.

Incidentally, going back to my suicide comment, would a pregnant woman with severe depression who tries to commit suicide be tried for murder? Some would say she should be, but the idea seems completely abhorrent to me, not only because of her mental state, but also because there was no attempt to prevent this from occurring. The punishment came afterwards, but there was no attempt to provide the necessary support and services to take care of pregnant mothers and fetuses beforehand.

And honestly, perhaps some of these women don't even WANT children, but feel obligated to do so because of years of "You're killing your baby!" guilt, or the inaccessibility of birth control and abortion.

Lastly, I would like to remind everyone that pregant women are advised not to go into hot tubs or saunas because of the adverse affect heat has on a baby. Will women be prosecuted because they didn't realise their bathwater was excessively warm? I'm just emphasizing the earlier comments on how this is a slippery slope.

In short, my recommendations:
1) Abolish these laws. They're reactionary and unhelpful in dealing with the actual root problem.
2) Replace them with comprehensive programs to provide non-judgemental (this is key) care to pregnant mothers.
3) Choice, choice, choice. Universal accessibility to birth control and abortion, and enough with the shaming. Women need healthcare, not preaching.

This will, of course, be more expensive, but perhaps not weighed against the social cost of FAS, birth defects, unfit parents, and having the western world's highest infant mortality rate. I'm told it's higher than that of Cuba.

prairielily, agreed 100%.

Cheers,

TH

Eshew, do you smoke? Are you disgusted with yourself when you smoke around a pregnant woman? How about when you smoke around women in general, since a woman can be well into a pregnancy without physically showing it?

The first thing I thought of when I read this post was "What about a woman who has bulemia/anorexia - will she be put in jail? Forcefed?"

I completely agree with Prairielily. I think it's sad that instead of providing any kind of real health care to Americans, our government would rather just assign blame.

Nope, I don't smoke. I would be disgusted with myself if I smoked around a pregnant woman or not.

I agree with P.L.'s last two points, but I completely dissagree with her first point. Making those actions illegal would supplement the two later points.

I do think that a woman who injests tobacco, alcohol or drugs knowingly while pregnant should be punished for doing it. I don't know why anyone would think otherwise. As far as ignorance is concerned, ignorance is NEVER an excuse, especially since on Tobacco and Alcohol Packages many of the products actually say "Warning: May Cause Birth Defects". You'd have to be pretty much near retarded to not know this.

As far as the assertion that some of these women might not want their babies, THEN FINE, USE BIRTH CONTROL (and worse case scenario, get an abortion). If you do end up bringing a child to term, however, it doesn't matter how little you want to give birth to a baby, you are giving birth to a baby, and that baby and society deserve for you not to take part in activities that are overtly harmful to the life that is growing inside of you. Regardless of how little you want it. The level of selfishness in using that as an excuse is ASTOUNDING. I'm sorry, but I don't think feminism is a fight for your right to be an outright asshole and to permanently damage a potential offspring since it just happens to be in your body.

Smoking while pregnant can and does harm to a fetus.

Smoking while not pregnant can and does harm born people around you. Does the lethality of second-hand smoke mean you support having special designated areas for smoking modeled on Amsterdam's hash bars?

This will, of course, be more expensive, but perhaps not weighed against the social cost of FAS, birth defects, unfit parents, and having the western world's highest infant mortality rate.

Actually, the US not only has the first world's worst health care stats, but also its highest health care spending. Done right, comprehensive health programs will not only bring American infant mortality down to a level that befits a developed country in 2006, but also save the American economy almost a trillion dollars a year.

Alon Levy,

I did know that, actually, but my understanding is that since health care is provided mostly by insurance companies, it doesn't got the govt money. I meant that the new social programs would cost the govt more money. I hadn't even thought of it from the perspective of the economy.

EO,

I do see your point. I just disagree that the laws are going to help. I really, really don't think that a woman who is going to smoke or drink while pregnant is going to say, "Oh, I can't, it's illegal." Like I said, it's often a function of dependence or other social problems.

Hauling women into custody for such things exacerbates the problem. Even then, it just punishes women, and doesn't seems to help the situation.s healthy families. What if pregnant women who really want to quit their "habits" become afraid to get help because they might be punished for already having done something illegal?

And another thing: this law discriminates against poor women because they're the "type" of people perceived to do this kind of thing. No one is going to go from middle class cocktail party to wedding reception to see which woman is drinking a glass of wine.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to maintain my first point. I'm not saying that anyone has the right to hurt their potential offspring; I'm saying exactly what I said before: these laws are reactionary and unhelpful.

Eshew,

Where do you draw the line? Would you want alcoholic men prosecuted because they may father a child with their defective sperms? Should the tobacco companies be tried for marketing their products to the woman? Or is it just women who are in your opinion baby-incubators and are �designed� to take care of babies?

I have actually never seen that "Warning: May Cause Birth Defects" on an alcohol package. And even if it was there, no doubt in tiny prints, it wouldn’t absolve the government from it’s responsibility to educate, raise awareness, and provide recourses and remedies. Isn’t it the government or the health care system that should be put on trial here?

And as far as the cost to the healthcare system goes would you suggest obese people be put in jail? This nation ranks 29th in the world in terms of infant mortality. Infant mortality could be reduced by 25- 30% if mothers could afford better healthcare and nutrition when pregnant and for the bay after birth. But hey, don’t let that get in your way. Let’s blame the woman.

I encourage you all to check out the website for Lynn Paltrow's organization: www.advocatesforpregnantwomen.org. For those of us who disagree with Eshew, NAPW's website provides more evidence. For Eshew and others who believe crimminalizing smoking, et al, during pregnancy is a good idea, perhaps the website will cause you to at least reconsider and rethink your position.

My mother smoked while pregnant with me - I went to Oxford University and am healthy physically. I cannot imagine how terrible it would be to find out that she had been imprisoned because of me, even indirectly. Or to think that my parents had been parted while she was pregnant.
Apart from that - what about the partners of expectant mothers? Should they be jailed if they smoke in front of them? What about pregnant women having sex (can induce labour)? Or a woman keeping her stressful job (bad chemicals for the baby)?
I agree that women who take drugs while pregnant need attention: but help, not prison. How will jailing help anyone, apart from putting more women in jail? And don't you think it would be just as easy, if not easier, to get drugs in jail?
Yep, this is an excuse to police women's bodies, not an excuse to help anyone or solve any problems.

I too come from that generation when people were unaware of the effects of alcohol and tobacco on fetal development. My mom actually craved cheeseburgers and whisky throughout the pregnancy (but cigarettes made her ill), and indulged regularly (who can blame her? It's a delightful combination). She was amazed later after the studies first came out, but you know what? Everyone was doing it at the time.

A while ago, I was a waitperson at a popular restaurant where we lived at the time in Portland, OR. One day, the Oregonian featured a male waiter from Seattle, pictured with a smug expression on his face. He had ignited a controversy when he refused to serve a glass of wine (in wine country!) to a woman in her third trimester. He considered himself some sort of hero, evidently. My mom said, "I hope if you ever encounter this kind of situation, you have enough respect for the woman to make her own decisions." Well, of course I agreed...then she added, "if THAT guy EVER refused me a glass of wine because I was visibly pregnant, I'd slap the shit out of that grin."

Frankly, I'd do the same thing, which is why I may be arrested for assault one day; I have a low threshold for cretins.

Most importantly, isn't it interesting that these "do-gooders" think they're saving lives by refusing alcohol in the third trimester? The obvious apprearance of pregnancy is inverse to the level of harm inflicted on the fetus. Such waiters are going to have to search their customers' trash bins for home pregnancy tests in order for their god-playing to be the most beneficial.

I eagerly await Eshew's reply to whether or not we should throw men in jail for their alcoholism and drug use on the grounds they may impregnate someone (without using birth control!!). Oh right, god forbid we interfere with a man's body.

Reading this thread, there seem to be a range of actions with a wide variety of consequences, some more severe and certain, others less so, and these may occur in early or late stages of pregnancy.

Right off the bat I have to say that in no case is the comparison between a mother who does something to her born child and a mother who does something to herself while carrying a fetus equivalent. In the former case the mother is by no means exercising a personal right, while in the latter case she is. Thus in the latter case we are talking about a necessary clash of legitimate interests between the mother and fetus in a way that we are not talking about in the former case. Thus the two sides have to be weighed against one another. Certainly a range behaviors a mother could undertake which varies in seriousness, going from the right to use a sauna to the right to have a glass of wine to the right to seriously abuse alchohol in a way that would almost certainly cause a mental deformity. Rather than a fine, dramatic moral line existing, an unclear and confusing gradient exists.

Nor does showing that some behavior is undesirable necessarily mean that it should be illegal. Second-hand smoke is clearly undesirable, yet it does not make smoking in the presence of someone else illegal.

Ultimately, it comes down to a matter of balance.

One can easily see the social interest in preventing the entry into society of a child with mental illness due to a mother's serious abuse of alchohol.

On the other hand one can also see the loss of basic freedom by women who are pregnant if they were compelled by law to behave in every way as to maximize the probable health of the future child in accordance with the full body of medical science-- not even parents of born children are required to do that, for it rightly smacks of totalitarianism.

Thus the best solution seems to be to adopt a 'floor of protection' for fetal health without asking the mother to 'maximize her behavior' with respect to fetal health. A realistic 'floor of protection' is requiring pregnant women to avoid behavior that would have a high probability of causing significant damage to the future person's permanent health, such as alchohol or drug abuse. Not requiring 'behavior maximizing' on the other hand would be allowing behavior which may be statistically correlated with problems or undesirable characteristics, but is not very likely to cause them in themselves, and I though I haven't read all of the studies, I would venture to guess that light cigarette use or a glass of wine would fall into this category.

"Who is in control of a woman's body - the woman herself, her father if she's under 18, her husband if she's married, the state or the federal government in all or none of the above situations? If we decide that it is a governmental entity, where does it end? Do we stop with women who are contemplating not carrying a child to term, or do we expand that right? We've already done so by making it all but illegal to serve a pregnant woman alcohol. We're protecting that baby, even if the mother chooses not to, we say. What next? Are we to pass laws making it illegal to sell cigarettes to obviously pregnant women? What about whoever may be living in the house with her and her unborn child? Maybe it will become illegal to smoke around a pregnant woman. What about driving? She could get into an accident and injure the child. Or maybe we could just make it a law that the very second a woman realizes she's pregnant, she must stay in her house, eat only organic foods and not do anything that may endanger the life she carries inside her; make her nothing but a walking womb. Oh wait, better not let her walk around, she might trip over something."

From my blog entry about this issue back in April. I hate that it's actually gotten as bad as my paranoid mind thought it would back then.

http://jennaratrix.typepad.com/and_your_little_dog_too/2006/04/i_dont_really_w.html

I did know that, actually, but my understanding is that since health care is provided mostly by insurance companies, it doesn't got the govt money. I meant that the new social programs would cost the govt more money. I hadn't even thought of it from the perspective of the economy.

Actually, the US government still has Medicare to take care of, and the state governments have Medicaid. In fact the US has both the highest private and the highest public spending on health care in the world, although obviously the difference between the US and other developed countries in private spending is higher than the difference in public spending.

My mother smoked while pregnant with me - I went to Oxford University and am healthy physically.

Yeah, me too (well, I didn't go to Oxford, but I'm starting Columbia in September). I didn't mention it because anecdotes don't equal data.

Thus in the latter case we are talking about a necessary clash of legitimate interests between the mother and fetus in a way that we are not talking about in the former case. Thus the two sides have to be weighed against one another.

I don't think that's the right way to look at it. It makes very little sense to give fetuses legal rights: fetuses have no right to life under any sane law, so it makes no sense to grant them the right not to be damaged by smoke or alcohol.

A better way to think of it is as putative damage to born babies. A pregnant woman who smokes endangers the health of what will be a baby with rights. In that case, the right of a pregnant woman to smoke should be analogized to parents' rights to do potentially risky things, such as live near a toxic dump or drive a car.

Ok let's throw everyone who drives a diesel car, sprays pesticides, takes over the counter/prescribed drugs and let's not forget the Government who dusted DDT around like talc in gaol. They have a nice little name for it these day "epigenetics".

Seriously though, it's frightening the number of women who eat crap, take over the counter medications with nary a thought for their child or future generations especially fetal oocytes.

Even more frightening, the number of women who are on antidepressants ... why the hell are they having children anyway ... fuck if you can't cope with life, how the hell does one expect to raise a child!

I don't even know one woman who'd so much as drink coffee whilst pregnant, yet your society thinks sudafed (hell, let's all go drop a few eckys) is normal.

This is definitely not about fetal safety and everything about fear and control ... the hallmark of your society.

A few years back, the crack baby was the horrid stigma. Turns out it wasn't crack that did it - it was alcohol. Crack abuse would sometimes screw up a child. But eavy alcohol abuse would inevitably screw up a child.

Damaged sperm can also create a screwed up child. Not as easily as sharing a polluted blood and oxygen supply for 9 months, but there's some responsibility. It takes 3-4 months to produce healthy sperm. Plan on it.

I remember a woman who drank and smoked dope and cigarettes all through pregnancy, and then with the birth declared, "I love this baby so much, I want to clean up, to change my life." What an idiot.

I'm sorry so much of this thread is about "society", and not about doing what's best for oneself and one's child. Yes, it's quite possible to escape damage in the womb, though the body's chemistry is so complicated that we never understand all of the effects, and after 5 years of taking care of a fortunately not too disabled child and contemplating how bad it could have been, somehow playing roulette doesn't seem worth it.

In any case, it's the baby that gets to live with the parents' life style decisions. Perhaps those parents can put their egos on hold for about 13 months before birth, and try to give the baby a good start?

And then you get this latest scaremongering about obesity being as big a risk to the fetus as smoking and drinking (http://www.medpagetoday.com/OBGYN/Pregnancy/tb/2610) - does that mean they're going to have to lock up all the fat chicks?

I don't like where this is going.

"Even more frightening, the number of women who are on antidepressants ... why the hell are they having children anyway ... fuck if you can't cope with life, how the hell does one expect to raise a child!"

Depression isn't about "not being able to cope with life," any more than asthma is "not being able to cope with air." It's an illness with both genetic and environmental components. I've heard very mixed messages about what to do re: anti-depressants during pregnancy, but the same dilemma holds for every woman with a chronic illness who is deciding whether or not to have a child. The idea that somehow depression makes you especially unfit to bear children...bah.

There is no way none of these laws will be passed. I am not sure who is running this country and make laws. We actually voted these people in.
diabetes information
symptoms of bipolar
disease information
help with mesothelioma