To say this story is shocking.

[ICanSeeTheSun]

abcnews.go.com/US/woman-charged-controversial-law-criminalizes-drug-pregnancy/story?id=24542754

A young mother has been arrested because her baby tested positive for meth.

I always believe that these women who use drugs during pregnancy should be helped and supported to get them off the drugs and get them into education in order for them to be the best mothers possible.

Arresting this mothers and punishing her for up to a year in prision I believe is a waste of time.

abcnews.go.com/US/woman-charged-controversial-law-criminalizes-drug-pregnancy/story?id=24542754

Yabu, it's another massive warning how bad it is to do drugs when pregnant

It's also bad to smoke and drink while pregnant, would you also support a law in which punish mothers for smoking and drinking in pregnancy.

Drug taking in pregnancy is worse, but criminalising it is appalling.

I agree that it is shocking. How do you think she should be helped and what do you think should happen to the baby in the meantime?

O, mother goes to prison, what happens to the baby?

If a baby that had been born was given alcohol or drugs it would be a strong case for removal from its mother. There is an argument that this could/should be extended to unborn babies. However, I would be concerned that passing such legislation would be a back door route to classifying legal abortion as murder (i.e. by assigning rights to an unborn child).

Tricky, and I have a lot of reservations but in all honesty, my thoughts are for the baby on meth, not the mum.

Drug taking in pregnancy is worse, but criminalising it is appalling.

Er, using non prescription meth is illegal per se.

The mother could go had compulsory drug abuse programme to attend and random drug test. Also compulsory parenting classes.

ICanSeeTheSun
The mother could go had compulsory drug abuse programme to attend and random drug test. Also compulsory parenting classes

Agree but apparently the law allows for this - the article says:
The law allows anyone charged to use entering a treatment program before birth and successfully completing it afterwards as a defense

So yes, she could have entered a treatment programme, but didn't. Had she have sone so, she might not have been separated from her baby.

However, I would be concerned that passing such legislation would be a back door route to classifying legal abortion as murder (i.e. by assigning rights to an unborn child)

Call me cynical but I think this is exactly where these laws are going. I'm not even sure it's particularly "back door".

The law came in a few weeks before she had the baby.

ICanSee, yes she could have but if she had still chosen to take drugs then what? Do you think the baby should stay with its mother when there is a significant risk that the mother will continue to take drugs? Even if they have attended a programme?

I know of someone who sniffed glue throughout all her pregnancys. She was offered help but refused. They are all adopted now.

If the mother failed to comply with the programme then the child should be removed.

This exists only so as to create a precedent for taking women's rights to bodily integrity away from them. This is very very depressing.

Well it does say that the new law allows anyone charged to enter a treatment program that if they successfully complete they can use as their defense.

I've worked with drug and alcohol addiction and some of those people have been pregnant. Even when offered treatment programs some don't manage to complete it

I think it's just a slippery slope in women being seen as just a walking incubator.

What if the judge don't allow it to be used as the women defence.

ICanSee, so in this case if she had been on the programme and had taken drugs anyway then you would have supported the baby being taken away? Surely it doesn't make sense to support her keeping the baby when she is more likely to use again?

ICanSeeTheSun
I think it's just a slippery slope in women being seen as just a walking incubator

I do agree with you. It's very scary. BUT, I also think the baby's welfare should be at the centre of this and I'm very sceptical someone addicted to meth can provide a safe/stable home.

That baby welfare should come first, that what SS and other agency are for.

You can't take care of a baby when you are high as a kite, if she is on a programme and still taking drugs. Then supervised contact is the safest for the baby.

It depends, I worked in an inpatient detox centre. It's a 14 day stay but of course it costs the NHS a lot of money and we don't have very many centres in this country

So you do think the baby should be removed but you don't think she should be imprisoned - is that it? You can be imprisoned for up to a year for possession of meth anyway so I don't think the sentence seems completely unreasonable.