"Choice"

After watching an episode of Law and Order: SVU, I recently became inspired (this happens often). Episode 7 of season 5, entitled "Choice," battled with the ongoing and controversial subject of how the law should view and handle prenatal substance abuse. In this particular episode, a wife is taken to court, by her husband, who accuses her of endangering the fetus of FAS, due to her consistent drinking. I'd certainly recommend the episode, so I won't give away the ending. Instead, I'd like to invite your initial responses to the episode, because I know my own reaction had me whirling and wondering for weeks.

 (SNEAK PEAK: In this photo, Detective Benson confronts the Defendant, who ends up having a history with FAS)

So, after the intrigue of the episode faded, I decided to look into the logistics of this political hotbed.  And so we are all on the same page, here are THE FACTS.  According to the American Pregnancy Association (2011), the laws that address prenatal substance abuse are as follows:

• Iowa, Minnesota, and North Dakota's health care providers are required to test for and report prenatal drug exposure. Kentucky health care providers are only required to test.
• Alaska, Arizona, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Oklahoma, Utah, Rhode Island and Virginia's, health care providers are required to report prenatal drug exposure. Reporting and testing can be evidence used in child welfare proceedings.
• Some states consider prenatal substance abuse as part of their child welfare laws. Therefore prenatal drug exposure can provide grounds for terminating parental rights because of child abuse or neglect. These states include: Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Minnesota, Nevada, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
• Some states have policies that enforce admission to an inpatient treatment program for pregnant women who use drugs. These states include: Minnesota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin.
• In 2004, Texas made it a felony to smoke marijuana while pregnant, resulting in a prison sentence of 2-20 years.

My first thought after reading these laws (particularly regarding Texas), was how is incarcerating a pregnant woman for 20 years benefiting the baby, the mother, or anyone for that matter? To punitively respond to such a developmentally sensitive stage of life, might in some ways seem counter productive. I then began to visualize the divide. Imagine the United States as fragmented puzzle, unable to be pieced together, and that is what I see when it comes to these policies. How is it that some states can categorize these mothers as child abusers, while other states defend these mothers' constitutional rights so differently? Even on top of that, I began to wonder what these laws would mean for ProChoice advocates. With states upholding child abuse laws, like the fetus is in fact a person, what does that mean for their campaign?

It is an incredibly complex combination of how the law must juggle with concepts of a woman's right to bodily integrity, with society's interest in promoting pregnancy wellness. Personally, the real question is whether these sort of policies will support, or obstruct healthy outcomes, for both the mother and the child.