DeMarCaTionVille

At the request of Fourth Judicial District’s James B. Dunn, the AG has weighed in on the criminal liability of a mother of child born with drug addiction.

Assuming sufficient proof of causation, a mother who ingests an illegal drug, thereby injuring her viable fetus, can be criminally liable for assault if she intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury; aggravated assault if she intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes serious bodily injury; or reckless endangerment if she places the fetus in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury.

So, along the same line of reasoning, you could charge a drug-addicted mother with manslaughter of a stillborn child if you could prove drug-use was the cause of death.

I don’t disagree with this finding entirely.

Of course, the my body-my business argument here is – if it’s acceptable for the government to intervene and declare the behavior or habits of a woman, which could be ultimately detrimental to her unborn child criminal: what about those mothers who smoke? Those who do not eat properly? Skip their prenatal vitamins? Those who fail to seek prenatal care? Hell, what about those non-pregnant women of childbearing age who neglect to take folic acid despite the PSAs advising them to do so?

Yes, yes, yes – I get this. I understand. I know the door to the uterus control room is ajar here. I realize these doors, if not slammed shut, could allow other small intrusions. A little bit here. A little bit there. Until there are so many unwelcome invaders we’re not sure where they came from, when they arrived or how they started dictating the rules – but the truth is I don’t have the heart to slam the door this time.

Having been called upon to serve as co-caregiver for a drug-addicted infant when the child’s grandmother had hit the end of her rope, I’ve witnessed the damage inflicted firsthand. It’s painful, lingering, and creates an environment that ain’t no cakewalk for anyone involved.

The mother, like most drug-addicted mothers, wasn’t evil. During the brief visits she had with her child, somewhere between the coming down and the getting high, there were moments of stark realization. She knew what she’d done and was horrified by her own behavior – yet she couldn’t stop.

Lo and behold, 18 months after the first drug-addicted infant came along, another followed.

Then another.

Look, this girl was stoned out of her head when she got pregnant. She was stoned out of her head while she was pregnant. She gave birth and started the cycle all over again. And these habits aren’t likely to change without some type of intervention or help.

So, I’m in favor of preventing these situations by whatever means necessary, either by supporting the termination of the pregnancy early on or locking up pregnant ladies in treatment centers, padded cells or behind concrete walls with bars on the window and keeping them away from drugs until the baby is born… then, you can let them go.

Hopefully, they will be fit enough to go forth and nurture their children.

Of course, we cannot do this, can we? Because this damage occurs during gestation, and technically, a child has no legal rights until it is born, the mother cannot be charged with any violation until the damage is done – at which time yes, she has inflicted bodily harm and injury on another person – a new person but a person nonetheless – and I think yes, she can be held legally responsible for this.

But what’s the damn point? We can address punishment for the crime. We can overpopulate the prisons with these women and throw away the key – but what have we changed? What problem have we prevented? How many newborns did we protect?

Not a single one.

In order to prevent the problem, we’d have to accept an unborn child has “anticipated” rights. We’d have to determine when, how, and which supersede the mother’s – and if gestational age is a factor.

We’d have to change up our thinking in a lot of dangerous areas… and yet I still want to say, “Okay, you can cross the threshold just this once because it’s a for a good cause and it’s the only way to prevent this from happening, but just so we’re clear, this doesn’t set any type of precedent.”

But it doesn’t work this way and I know that. So, I’m lost. I’ve stepped back and forth across that line between personal responsibility and individual rights on this so many times that the line now resembles an Rorschach Inkblot that I probably do not want to ponder upon too very much.

Honestly, the most logical thing I can do here is admit I’m too attached to the issue. My position is colored by my experience and my emotion to such a degree than I cannot separate the two: therefore I will refer you to Tiny Cat Pants and Women’s Health News.

Aunt B. and Rachel will have to be the bouncers at the door on this one, because I don’t think I’m up for the job.