Theu.s. Supreme Court Case

In 1989, a public hospital in Charleston, South Carolina began implementing a policy to randomly test women for drugs who came for prenatal care or delivery without their informed consent. If the women tested positive, they were arrested and not given the opportunity to seek drug treatment. In 1990, the policy was modified to allow the women to avoid being arrested if they entered into a drug treatment program, attended all their counseling appointments, and passed all their subsequent drug tests. Ten women tested positive for cocaine were arrested and responded by suing the hospital and the state. In 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the women because the tests were administered without their consent.

In 2014, after seeing a significant increase in babies born with neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS), Tennessee began criminally charging pregnant women who use drugs (Sakuma, 2014). Supporters of the new legislation refer to it as a “velvet hammer” used to convince the pregnant drug users into going into treatment, or doing jail time. However, critics are concerned that this legislation will be just another barrier for a group of women who are already at risk, (Sakuma, 2014).

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld in the past that a person cannot be prosecuted for being a drug addict. People can be prosecuted for the sale or possession of an illegal drug but prosecuting someone for the illness of drug addiction is a breach of the 8th Amendment’s bar on cruel punishment. Usually cases involving pregnant drug-addicted women arise when a doctor reports that a woman tested positive or appears to have a drug problem. Rarely are there cases where the woman is arrested for possession and then charged with child abuse. For example, if I told my doctor I had a drug addiction, I wouldn’t get reported. Just as

A landmark Supreme Court case is one in which a precedence is set and there is an impact on society. There are many reasons for the importance of landmark cases and the studying of such cases. Some of these reasons are to study how the judicial branch works, try to understand how decisions made in the judicial branch affects laws and everyday life, and predict how current issues and cases will be affected by past decisions (The Judicial Learning Center, 2012). There are many examples of Supreme Court cases that are considered to be a landmark, but one example is Texas vs. Johnson.

The Supreme Court is the courtroom where all the legal cases dealing with congress or the constitution go to get a final decision. The Court is currently composed of a chief justice, eight associate justices, and nine officers. Their main goal as members of the Supreme Court is to make sure everything and anything abides by the constitution. It has many powers when it comes to law and especially the constitution, but it is not overly powerful due to the other two branches of the government. Checks and balances helps keep their powers level and just as important as the executive and legislative branch powers. The Court has the ability to remove a law or refute anything that violates the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court, on average, receives around 7,000-8,000 petitions for a writ of certiorari every term. The Court grants and hears oral arguments for eighty cases. One case specifically was Printz v. United States. This case focused on dealing with background checks when purchasing a firearm. Jay Printz deemed the provisions to the Brady Bill unconstitutional, decided to take it to the District Courts and eventually the case ended up in the Supreme Court, where Stephen P. Halbrook fought and won the case based on a five to four ruling in favor of Printz.

While legislators believe that this policy will effectively sort out the “worst of the worst” (Gonzales & DuBois, 2014), this reporter doubts the efficiency and utility of the policy. If the aim is to force mothers into treatment, then perhaps sending them to jail is not the most effective method. Those defending the law have sent mixed messages around how it should be carried out, some describing the law as a “velvet hammer” while others employ it as a strong-arm tactic used to bust women who use narcotics (Beyerstein, 2014; Goldensohn & Levy, 2014). This, in addition to the previous legislation protecting mothers, makes it uncertain how a woman will be received when she reveals her substance use. Likewise, the chances of getting arrested

To reiterate, the Supreme Court majority in the case, properly and professionally interpreted the Bill of Rights regarding the right to privacy. It is logical and imperative that the citizens are given a sense of liberty when it comes to their personal lives and this does not affect another citizen directly. If there was no sense of privacy, then we would live in a country where the government would hold all the power and eventually control our lives. This is most definitely not what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. The purpose of those documents was to limit the government from having all the power over its citizens which is why the colonies decided to break from the tyranny of the British. Had the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Connecticut law, the government would have had the power to now

The Fourth Amendment gives everyone the right to be free from unreasonable searches. A special analysis “State Responses to Substance Abuse Among Pregnant Women,” brings up the case of 10 women who were secretly tested for cocaine use while seeking routine prenatal care at a South Carolina public hospital (State). Women who resulted positive were reported to local authorities and charged with criminal child abuse (State). Now, it was up to the court to determine if the procedure of testing women without their consent or warrant is a violation to their Fourth Amendment. However, an article states that “only in South Carolina has the state supreme court, in the 1997 case Whitner v. South Carolina, upheld the conviction of a woman charged with criminal child abuse for using cocaine during pregnancy. In that case, the court held that a viable fetus is a "person" under the state's criminal child endangerment statute, and that "maternal acts endangering or likely to endanger the life, comfort, or health of a viable fetus" could constitute child abuse” (State). To include, it is logical to test women at hospitals because hospitals were constructed to maintain health from the youngest fetus to oldest senior

The question about whether pregnant women are liable for subjecting their unborn children to risk has yet to be properly addressed. One state South Carolina has been on the forefront of this issue. The Supreme Court in South Carolina in 1997 in the case Whitner vs. South Carolina decided that pregnant women who exposed their viable fetuses may be persecuted under the state child abuse laws. This action was specifically targeting women who use illegal drugs during pregnancy. Since this decision, other states like Arizona and Florida are following suit. In South Carolina, the Medical University of South Carolina Hospital routinely tested the urine of pregnant women for

According to Substance use during pregnancy: time for policy to catch up with research, “The drug war has included treatment of addicts and prevention but the emphasis has been on law enforcement; control at the source, interdiction, arrest, prosecution, imprisonment and seizure of assets (Lester, Andreozzi, & Appiah, 2004).” In other words the focus on the fight against drugs has been punishment. Many people view pregnant drug users as child abusers, child neglectors, and even murderers. In a lot of cases this is true. There are thousands of children today who suffer the consequences for their parents actions. In many places, women lose their children or end up in behind bars (Miranda, Dixon, & Reyes, 2015). Tennessee is the only state that considers it a crime to use drugs while pregnant (Miranda, Dixon, & Rayes, 2015). On the other hand, Alabama and South Carolina’s high courts have interpreted existing child endangerment and chemical endangerment statutes in order to prosecute drug-using pregnant women and new mothers (Miranda, Dixon, & Rayes, 2015). The main

“Since 1985 about 250 Women in 30 states have been criminally prosecuted in relation to drug abuse while pregnant.” (Coles, par 16) Since there isn’t a law in place for a woman being convicted for drinking or smoking while pregnant, they dig a little deeper and get more technical. Charges for unlawful child neglect, delivering drugs to a minor, homicide by child abuse and even manslaughter have been given to mothers who abuse drugs or alcohol while pregnant. Some even believe in terminating the woman’s parental rights. Whether or not the child shows signs before birth, they have started to test newborns for drugs and prosecute from there. (NAPW, par 33-35)

The rationality of those who support the punishment of addicted mothers focus on the idea that maternal conduct could lead to potential detrimental effects upon the fetus and that prosecution of such behavior would serve as both retribution for the fetus and as a deterrent. Whereas those who advocate for the pregnant women view this rational as not only impermissible but also unconstitutional as in current legal standing the fetus has no rights that usurp those of the pregnant woman (Stone-Manista, 2009, pp.823-856). Advocates also suggests that the breadth of forces that lead to drug use in pregnant women have a prevalent cultural and social foundation that the proponents for deterrence and retribution ignore in favor of strict scrutiny. This conflict between women’s rights and fetal rights has caused a paradigm in the prosecution of pregnant drug users as the interpretation of criminal sanctions argues over the definition of ‘child’ as encompassing fetuses in the definition would then lay the foundation for punishment for a woman’s conduct during pregnancy (Stone-Magnets, 2009, pp.823-856). Though currently it is unconstitutional and legally impermissible to prosecute women with state child abuse statutes in regards to drug use during pregnancy; advocates of fetal rights continue to follow

Additional charges might include injury to a minor or delivering drugs to a minor. I believe these charges only add insult to injury. Prosecuting pregnant women for illicit drug use already adds unneeded stress to a mother and her unborn child. Extending these charges to include delivering drugs to a minor and injury to a minor is uncalled for in my opinion. I believe all women should be treated the same when prosecuted for illicit drug

In the United States, prenatal substance use continues to be a widespread problem with the addictive substances used during pregnancy; the risk factors, and the long-term effects a baby can have. When a pregnant woman uses drugs, she and her unborn child face serious health problems. Long-term effects of drugs on babies can include behavioral problems as they grow older. They can also be born addicted to the drugs used to treat the mother’s addiction. The task at hand is to make sure that we view all drugs of abuse through a common lens, regardless of legal status, so that their impact on child outcome can be adequately assessed leading to appropriate policy

Many women, including teens, abuse drugs while they are pregnant. This rate is especially high to those who are homeless, underprivileged, or live in a broken home. In order for drug abusers to even have a chance at beating their addiction they have to have support whether it’s family, friends, or boyfriend/spouse. They must also let the abuser now all the consequences to themselves and the unborn child. There are many consequences when using drugs during pregnancy such as miscarriage, health risks to baby, and health risks to the mother. And learning disabilities and brain damage to the fetus.