ACLU Applauds No Punishment For Pregnant Women Doing Drugs

Posted on August 5, 2006

The American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland applauded today’s decision by the Maryland Court of Appeals unanimously ruling that the reckless endangerment statute does not apply to women who take drugs while pregnant.

“The ACLU of Maryland is heartened that the high court agrees that prosecuting drug-dependent pregnant women is not what the state of Maryland considers good policy,” said David Rocah, staff attorney for the ACLU of Maryland. “We believe that using criminal law to regulate a pregnant woman’s conduct on the theory that it might harm a fetus or her newborn child is counterproductive, illegal, and, ultimately bad for children and society.” (emphasis in bold is mine.)

What???? It is a theory that a pregnant woman doing drugs will harm a fetus? But it is common practice for the ACLU to ignore common sense and facts in order to paint an abuser into a victim. The way the word their press releases is quite interesting and revealing of how they think. They think that punishing a negligant mother who has subjected her child to hard drugs is bad for children and “illegal”. The irresponsible and reckless acts of the mother are the things that are illegal and bad for children and society.

In reaching its decision in Cruz v. State of Maryland, the Maryland Court of Appeals stressed that the General Assembly has consistently rejected efforts to allow criminal prosecutions of women for drug use while pregnant because the approach to the problem is not good public policy. The high court ruled that state law does not support such criminal prosecutions and reversed the conviction of Kelly Cruz, a Talbot County woman who was convicted in August 2005 of reckless endangerment because she gave birth to a drug-exposed baby.

“The Court of Appeals correctly interpreted the law, as the legislature intended, not to criminalize the drug addiction of pregnant women, in effect, but to recognize that this difficult problem is most effectively addressed through drug treatment programs,” said ACLU cooperating attorney Beth S. Brinkmann, who argued the case before the Court of Appeals.

The case arose when, on January 13, 2005, Cruz gave birth to a son. Blood tests taken at the hospital showed the presence of cocaine, and based solely on those toxicology results, Cruz was charged with child abuse, reckless endangerment, contributing to the delinquency of a minor and drug possession. In response to a motion to dismiss filed by the ACLU on her behalf, the state’s attorney dropped all of the charges except for the reckless endangerment count. Cruz was ultimately convicted on that charge, which the court reversed today.

So where does justice come into play here? I agree the woman needs drug rehab, but she should have taken that responsibility when she realized she was pregnant and that another life was being subjected to her addictions. Why should this woman escape punishment for subjecting the unwilling and fragile life of her child to dangerous drugs? If the woman had subjected the child to drugs after being born there would be no question that she should be punished. This shouldn’t be any different. She knew she was carrying a child and made the concious decision to continue taking drugs.

The court of appeals reaffirmed the virtually unanimous view of courts around the country that such broad prosecutions under reckless endangerment statutes could make pregnant women vulnerable to criminal liability for a wide range of activities, some as mundane as not maintaining a proper and sufficient diet or exercising too much or too little.

This is a complete B.S. strawman. We are not talking about diet and exercise. We are not talking about a pregnant woman drinking a cup of coffee or a glass of wine on occasion. We are talking about criminal acts and illegal hard drugs. We are talking about an irresponsible mother subjecting her unborn child to the real possibility of death or birth defects. We are talking about her giving birth to a helpless child addicted to dangerous and illegal substances. For the ACLU to compare this to making it criminal if a pregnant woman doesn’t exercise as much as she could is a complete diversion from what we are really talking about.

Prosecuting pregnant women who suffer from drug dependencies is almost uniformly regarded as bad public policy, with no benefit for a child once it is born. Such a tactic deters women from seeking prenatal care, from going to a hospital to give birth and encourages pregnant women struggling with addiction to have abortions to avoid prosecution.

So in this case the ACLU are pretending to think that abortions are something women should avoid? I’m not sure what the exact laws are, but if a woman comes in for prenatal care and asks for drug rehab before any significant damage is done to the unborn baby then I think she should not be prosecuted. However, to find drugs in the baby’s system at birth tells us that this woman had very little, if any, desire to be rehabilitated from her abusive habit. She carried the baby to full term taking drugs disregarding the health of her child. And now thanks to the ACLU she will not be held responsible for her negligance and abuse.

Society recognizes that along with rights comes responsibility. Responsibility is essential in maintaining rights. The ACLU talk alot about rights and consistently ignore responsibility. A social conception of freedom closely ties rights to responsibilities and holds wrongdoers accountable for their actions. The ACLU reject this position. This case is not an isolated case either. The ACLU have a history of fighting fetal protection laws.

In this case, not only has the ACLU succeeded in making the victimizer into the victim, it has set a precedent for society to tolerate abusive negligance and dangerous irresponsibility. It has undermined justice, and enabled drug abusers to subject innocent children to dangerous and life threatening substances. We do not have the right to abuse other people. However this is essentially what the ACLU are arguing in cases like this. Holding people responsible for criminal actions and endangering the life of others is necessary for the function of a just society. It seems that this concept is foreign to the ACLU.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

» Filed Under ACLU, Child Exploitation, Illegal Activities, News

Trackback URL

Comments

One Response to “ACLU Applauds No Punishment For Pregnant Women Doing Drugs”

kerwin_brown on August 6th, 2006 4:54 am

I do not know the wrongful death or personal liability laws of Maryland which would be important in determining if a child within his mother’s womb right to life is honored by the particular state. The ruling gives me the impression that Maryland may be a backward state that does not honor life even at the point of quickening which our founders did which is strange as I believe they also honor common law.

I would like to see the prosecutor argument to see if I could. I have doubts that it was sincere as J. Joseph Curran Jr. is a pro choice Democrat. It is always easier to win a case when your opponent plans to take a fall.

ACLU plays this game quite often where both sides agree on some point the ACLU wants to set a precedent on.. The judges do not do research outside the arguments they hear so they are faced with the ACLU’s case and a straw man argument put on by someone that has sympathy for the ACLU’s objective.