The Curious Case of Race-Related Infant Mortality

There are approximately one million reasons that I can think of off the top of my head, and countless others I am not aware of, that prove that we do not, in fact live in a post-racial society. At all. Like, really.

For example: Donald Trump. Also, racism. And before you say it, yes, there is a difference between Donald Trump and racism. Mainly, racism makes up about 35-40% of Trump’s total body mass,

A simplified graph of Trump’s biological makeup

while Donald Trump constitutes only a tiny fraction of the world’s racists.

Trump: One of Many Active Racists

He Just Speaks Very Loudly

But racism and racialization do not occur only inside of a person; like, for instance, your great uncle from West Virginia. Instead, the root of most racial divisions and inequities can be found in systematic and institutional issues. Systematic and institutional racism don’t have a person, or group of persons, sitting behind a ~mystical curtain~ and pulling strings in the economy, healthcare systems, or education to make sure that white folks are sitting pretty at the top while folks of color, particularly black folks, are restricted in their opportunities.

Instead, systematic and institutional racism are seemingly harmless “natural” ways of doing things that have a negative impact on folks of color. This can be how the government allocates public funds, how companies choose their target markets and employees, harsher sentencing laws for drugs that are heavily associated with communities of color (the most obvious example being the difference between powder and crack cocaine; crack has much higher mandatory minimum sentences and, coincidently, is found primarily in black neighborhoods), and even what is taught in schools. Because of these systems, folks of color are unable to access the same opportunities and support as whites which leads to further exacerbation of inequality.

These ubiquitous systems can also have deadly consequences. We have all heard, of course, about the countless black and brown bodies that have been wrongly killed by police officers who interpret them as threats (another super fun example of systematic racism: the coding of people of color, particularly black and latinx, as criminals). The consequences of these systems also manifest in much less obvious, but sinister, locations.

The location I would like to focus on in this post is one of the saddest examples: infant mortality rates.

According to chapter 6 in Khiara Bridges‘ “Reproducing Race”, the infant mortality rate for Black babies is almost two-and-a-half times higher than for white babies. And, though infant mortality has declined overall since entering scientific modernity, this discrepancy has stayed the same. In the year 2000, African Americans had an infant mortality rate of 14.1 deaths per 1,000 live births; this same year, the national average was just 6.9 deaths per 1,000 live births (Bridges 107).

But why? Is there something biologically different about black folks that increases the risk of infants dying during birth? Is it an indicator of cultural inferiority? Is it because black folks are, on average, poorer than whites, or do not place as much value on healthcare? Or is it a symptom of a deeper social and political problem?

(Hint: it’s the last one)

According to a 2000 study by Fang et al., while “socioeconomic factors (such as marital status and educational achievement) were strongly correlated to maternal mortality for non-Black women, such factors had relatively little impact on the incidence of maternal mortality for Black women” (Bridges 109). This rejection of a primarily socioeconomic cause is supplemented by the work of the Institute of Medicine (IOM), a non-profit, NGO, which released a study indicating that the high incidence of poverty does not account for the trend “their being sicker and dying younger than their white complements” (Bridges 109). Instead, they found “racial and ethnic minorities receive lower quality health care than white people–even when insurance status, income, age, and severity of conditions are comparable” (IOM qtd. Bridges 110).

So, with socioeconomic variables off the table, this discrepancy in overall health and, by extension, infant mortality, must be largely or even solely race-related.

Historically, Black women have been portrayed as unnaturally strong and independent, with a much higher pain tolerance than their white compatriots. These traits were linked to an assumed inferiority of the Black race, a construction of Blackness that relied on discourses of “civilization”, where “primal” Black folks were seen as biologically and psychologically different from civilized (read: white) folks.

Black women, then, were assumed to have a certain “obstetric hardiness”, which characterizes them as “relatively unaffected by the expected pains of childbirth and labor” (Hoberman qtd. Bridges 117). As a result, they were often used for medical research and surgical experimentation.

Remnants of these beliefs can be pulled out from today’s discourses, particularly in the way that internal and systematic racism manifest in the work of doctors and physicians. Individual racism can be seen in the actions of physicians who hold conscious prejudices against folks of color when this prejudice directly informs their willingness to provide quality care. The systematic component comes in when examining the environment in which the doctor was raised and developed their ideologies (things like the racial diversity of their hometowns or schools, opinions of parents and peers, etc.), as well as what and how they are taught. Both have the effect of shaping a doctor’s opinions about a patient by race, which can lead to incorrect or negligent care.

Bridges gives a compelling example of this phenomenon, where racialized knowledges surrounding patient behavior, health, and culture are passed from doctor to doctor, generation to generation. The story concerns Dr. Rose, a retired doctor who began working at a public OB/GYN in order to “share with future generations of doctors her accumulated wisdom and passion for gynecological practice” (Bridges 122). Unfortunately, the wisdom she shared with Bridges was less than reassuring. Her stories relied heavily “cultural” knowledges that implicated folks of color as pathological, more likely to be “diseased” somehow. Other doctors at the same clinic expressed similarly warped views about culture, such as the idea that Mexican women always have easy labor and delivery (Bridges 140), or that Chinese women are more likely to abort a child due to a perceived defect (Bridges 138).

With these facts in mind, it seems clear, at least to me, that the observed racial discrepancy in infant mortality rates can be attributed largely to widespread racial biases in the medical community, which manifest in substandard care and support for pregnant Black women and result in a higher incidence of infant death.

 

 

 

 

 

Should Parents be Forced to Give Kids Vaccines?

Ever since the invention of vaccines in 1796 with the vaccination of smallpox created by Edward Jenner, people have generally trusted them to prevent diseases in ourselves and in our children. That is, until recently. Enough people have started to believe that vaccinations can cause autism or other harm that we have seen the outbreaks of once near-extinct or actually extinct diseases in the US, such as the measles, mumps, whooping cough, and chicken pox. It certainly doesn’t help that the controversial documentary Vaxxed was released in support of the anti-vax movement; nor does the fact that influential people have also come out in their beliefs about the links between autism and vaccines, such as actress Jenny McCarthy publicly admitting and even writing books about how she believes vaccines caused autism in her son, and Senator John McCain also publicly stating that there is “strong evidence” of a connection. But, is this really the case? Do vaccines cause autism?

 

To begin, we must first look at what a vaccine is and how it works. Vaccines are particles that contain a weakened or inactive form of a disease. Doctors inject us with vaccines because when our bodies come in contact with these foreign particles, they produce antibodies. Antibodies are molecules that bind to foreign particles and either mark these foreign particles to be destroyed or actually destroy these particles. Some of these antibodies are then stored in our blood stream in our long-term immunity, so that if our body should ever encounter the real virus, there will be antibodies ready to bind to and target these foreign particles, and so that the body can more easily make more antibodies necessary to counter the foreign particle. In this way, vaccines help the body defend itself from diseases.

 

However, not all children can get vaccinated. Newborn babies, for instance, cannot get vaccinated right away as their immune systems are not fully developed. They take in antibodies from their mothers when they are being breastfed, but these antibodies fade out of the body after about a year, and the baby must make its own antibodies. Other people may just be allergic to certain ingredients in the vaccine, and some people are too young or too old to get certain vaccinations. Over the years, this country has developed a thing called “herd immunity” to certain diseases. This is the idea that if almost everyone that can get a vaccination does, then the disease will almost, if not entirely, disappear from society, as there will be a low chance of an outbreak of the disease. Therefore, people who are not able to get vaccinated will be safe from contracting the disease. We have seen this with diseases such as influenza, measles, mumps, and rotavirus, as there have been little to no reported cases of these diseases in the US in recent history. But, if people stop getting their kids vaccinated, then the likelihood of those kids contracting these diseases increases, and thus their chance of spreading these diseases to people who can’t get vaccinated increases. And we are currently seeing this happen, happening in increasing numbers over the last few years, because parents are not getting their kids vaccinated because they think that vaccinations can cause autism. So that brings us back to the question at hand: do vaccines cause autism?

 

The answer is no. Vaccines do not cause autism.

 

There is no scientific evidence that vaccines cause autism. The Centers of Disease Control and Protection, or the CDC, says that vaccines do not cause autism. WebMD, a site that real doctors write articles for, says that vaccines do not have any kind of correlation with autism. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the World Health Organization, and the Institute of Medicine all say that vaccines do not have any relation to autism. Autism is a brain disorder in which it may be difficult to communicate and relate to other people. The causes of autism are still being researched, but it is thought that it can be genetic. A vaccination shot is not inherited through genes from parents to child, and so vaccinations probably do not cause autism. One ingredient common in vaccines, thimerosal, has been linked to a potential cause of autism in the past by parents, but the CDC cites scientific research papers studying this molecule, and concludes that there is no link between thimerosal and autism.

 

There’s an argument to be made that we have rights in this country that protect a parent’s right to do what they want with their own children, and they therefore cannot be forced to give their child a vaccination. The first amendment does protect and guarantee religious freedom, so if an anti-vaxxer is against vaccinations on religious grounds, they definitely would not have to get their child vaccinated under the first amendment. However, the Declaration of Independence states that US citizens have “certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” And when anti-vaxxers try to send their kids to school unvaccinated and those kids then contract and spread the measles around, they are infringing on other people’s rights to life, liberty, and happiness. It’s the same concept as the fact that this country guarantees freedom of speech, but there is still a precedent that we are not allowed to go into a theater and yell “fire.”  Yes, you have the right to not vaccinate your child, but when you try to send your kids to a public school, it puts all the other people in that school in danger, which is not ok.

 

Furthermore, when parents don’t want to vaccinate their children because they think it will cause autism, even when they know the risks of contracting a potentially fatal virus, what they’re really telling everyone is that they’d rather let their children die than raise a child with autism. There is such a stigma about not having a child that’s “normal,” and there is no reason for it. It’s not as if once a person is diagnosed with autism, they cease to be a human. I understand that in practical terms, raising a child with autism can be challenging and costly depending on what and how severe a child’s symptoms may be, but that doesn’t mean that children with autism should be stigmatized the way we see it happening now. And for those who can afford to take care of a child with autism but would rather leave them unvaccinated, why are you so afraid of it? Would you really rather tell people that your child has autism or a deadly disease?

And in the end, that’s what I think this is all really about. It’s not about whether or not autism is actually caused by vaccines. It’s about parents wanting “normal” children. It’s about the stigma that surrounds mental and behavioral illnesses. But if we are going to progress as a society, we must stop doing this. Because really, all babies are beautiful.

 

 

 

The Root of Health Disparities in the United States

If we take a look at the population of the United States and divide it up into different racial groups, what significant difference can we spot? Health disparities within the races.

Within the past couple years healthcare researchers, clinicians, and healthcare advocates have realized that there are major health disparities across the country. What has also been found was that the health care system plays a huge part in why those disparities are formed. African Americans, Latinos, Native Americans and Asian Americans are races who receive the least or at times no benefits at all.

What exactly are health disparities? According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, health disparities are defined as “a difference in which disadvantaged social groups such as the poor, racial/ethnic minorities, women and other groups who have persistently experienced social disadvantage or discrimination systematically experience worse health or greater health risks than more advantaged social groups.”

In the United States, African American men and women are more likely to die from Cancer than Caucasian men and women. Hepatitis C is more common among African Americans with an account of 22 percent even though African Americans only make up 13 percent of the United States Population. These are just some of the few disparities present in the US. Issues within the branch of healthcare access, poverty, exposure to environmental problems and inadequate education are the root causes of the disparities present.

In 2013, the US Census Bureau calculated that 25 percent of Hispanics, 11 percent of people of Asian descent and 27 percent of African Americans are living in poverty. In comparison, Caucasians only have a 12 percent rate of poverty. The more impoverish someone is, the more likely they are to not be able to afford health insurance. It was also found that in 2012, 26 percent of Native Americans, 16 percent of people of asian descent, 12 percent of native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders and 18 percent of African Americans do not have health insurance.

Children belonging to racial minorities are suffering greatly from this problem as well, not just adults. In 2012, it was found that 50.4 percent of children in the US belong to a racial minority. Certain health problems can be found within certain racial groups. Latino children have teeth conditions. African American children experience asthma, skin allergies and behavior problems. Native American children have hearing and visual problems and dental needs.

Another root cause of the disparities present is the inadequate access to fresh food. There are a lot of impoverished areas in the United States where supermarkets that carry fresh food are not accessible. Since there are not any supermarkets around, they are forced to rely on smaller shops like convenience stores which barely carry any fresh foods. It was established before that racial groups such as African Americans, Latinos, Asians, Native Americans and Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders have relatively high rates of poverty. What is most often then not found is that people living in poverty usually live in areas across the United States where the supermarkets that sell fresh foods are not within an accessible distance since those specific areas are usually impoverished. The inaccessibility of fresh foods leads to many health problems within the minorities. Since fresh foods are not an option, they consume unhealthy foods.

There have been many arguments that the reason why these health disparities exist is due to genetic-level differences. It is believed by many that some races are inferior to others genetically, which is why some races go through more problems in regards to health. Although some races may be more susceptible to some diseases (such as Caucasians being more susceptible to skin cancer) , it is not an excuse for the large gap in health that is present in the United States. Firstly, genes do not define any race. There has not been any proven source that shows that a single gene belongs to a certain race or shows characteristics that define a certain race. The idea of race being a political creation plays a part in this contradiction.

What most people don’t realize is that eliminating health disparities within the races would actually be beneficial to the United States Health Care System. Many of the diseases such as diabetes, hypertension and stroke that minorities have, are preventable diseases. Which means that the money spent on these diseases could be saved. In 2011 a study was conducted that showed that the cost of health disparities from 2003 to 2006 was about $229 billion.

In order to eliminate health disparities within races people need to be aware of the existing problem. If the government starts with education, so that people know what is going on around them, they will more likely take action to solve the problem. After education the government should put in more effort in order to supply health insurance or healthcare for all. Since not all can afford it, new policies should be created in order to eliminate the disparities present in our country.

How the Invention of Race Contributes to Rasicm

Look in the mirror. What is your race?

Is it determined by the color of your skin? Is it the color of your eyes? Is it the way you talk, and the accent with which you speak? Do your anatomical features define the authentic and unique blood rushing through your veins? Does it define what you are made of? These visible characteristics, among others, is what you use to characterize people into racial categories as soon as you walk into a room. Even though every individual holds stories, memories, and a culture they all hold within themselves, we still base what we consider race, off of things such as eye shape and hair texture.

First let us acknowledge that the United States (U.S.) Census Bureau does not have a distinct definition for race. Currently, the Census Bureau Website states that:

“The racial categories included in the census questionnaire generally reflect a social definition of race recognized in this country and not an attempt to define race biologically, anthropologically, or genetically”.

In other words, when the Census Bureau collects race data, they do not assume that your race is biological, and allow you to choose a race that you identify with and know the definition of.

This leads into a common argument for defining race; that because humans are living organisms the thing we now call “race” is biologically rooted and somehow this identity influences our rank and worth in society. This argument seems valid on the surface; you can attribute your hair color, texture, and facial features to your biological make up, and if these are things that also define race, this must mean that your biological make up can also be racially identified. But, this can only happen when you put a definition to the word race as to how to categorize people.

According to the American scholar Dorothy Roberts who disagrees with the biological race argument, she believes that race is a political construct, not biological. In her book Fatal Invention: How Science, Politics, and Big Business Re-create Race in the Twenty-first Century, she states:

“…race is a political grouping because it has political roots in slavery and colonialism…and its boundary lines-how many races there are and who belongs to each one-have shifted over time and across nations to suit those political purposes”.¹

While I think that the definitions of race exist in the world today, and can see how many may think that race is therefore biological, I agree with Roberts that race is a political creation, and has changed over time.

Even scientists are acknowledging the vague area that is race. Included in the Guidelines for Using racial and Ethnic Groupings in Data Analysis, a researcher names Camara Jones, declares that:

“race is only a rough proxy for socioeconomic status, culture, and genes, but it precisely captures the social classification of people in a race-conscious society such as the United States. … That is, the variable ‘race’ is not a biological construct that reflects innate differences…”.²

This means that researchers can recognize the ambiguity of race, and how it is not strictly defined by scientific terms, as well as not trying to define it.

You can see what we consider race, changes over time. For an example, we can refer to the 1930 census bureau. Self-identifying as Mexican would now be filed under the Hispanic/Latino category on a census, but in the 1930’s U.S. census Mexican was a separate race. In fact there was no Hispanic or

Enlarged Question #6 on 2010 Census

Latino racial category in the 1930 census at all. The races recognized at that time were Mexican, White, Black, American Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, Hindu, and Korean. This differs largely from the most recent 2010 census that follows the Office of Management and Budget criteria for race according to the U.S Census Bureau, and includes the following:  separated from the race question you are asked about Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origin- listing Mexican, Mexican American, Chicano, Puerto Rican, Cuban, and another Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origin; then under the race question they list-White, Black, African American or Negro, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian Indian, Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Other Asian, Native Hawaiian, Guamanian or Chamorro, Samoan, and Other Pacific Islander.

As the race categories over time have changed greatly, wouldn’t this not be able to happen if race was biological? Through court rulings and other government means of decision making, racial categories such as White, Black and Hispanic have changed overtime to what individuals can be included in each of those categories.

Biological race cannot exist, because then we could not change these racial categories and definitions in response to advances and achievements among the scientific community. But the fact that race can be reclassified and that different groups of people change their classified race by one political rule, is proof that race is not biological, but political.

So maybe now you are thinking “But Latinos are different from Whites, and Native Americans are different from Blacks-how can they not be of difference races?”. Well, to answer that we must look at the biological definition of race. According to the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, a biological”race[s], in the sense of genetically homogeneous populations, do not exist in the human species today, nor is there any evidence that they have ever existed in the past”. This means that for biological race to apply to humans, one race of human would be different (a different homogeneous population) than another race of human in the same species. But this is not the case.

A Closer Look at Sex & Gender Differences and Stereotyping

 

Sex and gender are both terms with dynamic definitions that have been invented by cultures and societies over time and space. In our culture and society, it is a commonly held belief that there are strictly two distinct sexes: male and female, and any deviation from what appears to be the norm is regarded by society as different and even abnormal. We sometimes struggle to understand that a broader spectrum of sex and gender exists. At a very young age, we are taught to believe that there are only two sexes and that specific characteristics, interests, and gender roles define what it means to be male or female. These preconceived notions on sex and gender become embedded in our brains almost as soon as we enter the world through our own observations and the teachings of our parents and peers, so perhaps it is not entirely our fault for being inclined to think this way.

Imagine an expecting mother and father to-be that become overjoyed by the news that they are having a baby girl. In preparation for the baby girl they buy dresses, baby dolls, and paint the nursery and crib pink. When the baby girl is born family members describe the baby as “pretty and beautiful” or “the perfect little girl”. But what if the baby was a baby boy? Ways to describe him would probably run along the lines of “handsome” or “he’s so big and strong”. So why is this? Why do we feel the need to put people into two seemingly polar opposite categories without any grey area in between? The truth is that we as humans naturally look to categorize people and things to reduce complexity, yet sex and gender are far too complex to have no room for variation, When we meet a stranger, the very first thing we notice about them is likely to be their sex/gender, race, age, or other characteristics that our society in particular values as important information used for classifying individuals. We then oftentimes unconsciously process this information and use it to make a judgment based on past life experiences with individuals that hold similar traits or characteristics.

Gender stereotyping is something we encounter in our daily lives and is something we are inclined to do without even realizing it most of the time. These stereotypes are created within a society and serve the purpose of forming invented generalizations about gender roles and expectations. It seems that parents need to hold some accountability for gender stereotyping their children and also be aware of when they are doing it. It is thought that parents have a lot of control or influence in determining child behavior and sensibility. Parents are encouraged to raise their children in a way that is free from gender stereotyping. In her chapter titled Under the Pink or Blue Blankie, Lise Eliot discusses sex differences including sensory, language, motor skills, and social/emotional differences between boy and girl infants. Its essential to study these differences in early infancy because it has been discovered that babies start picking up on gender differences immediately following birth. Eliot explains that while there are some subtle minor differences between boys and girls that are present at birth, parents still need to hold some accountability for fostering gender differences based on preconceived ideas of what is means to be male or female. These preconceived ideas shaped by society’s expectations result in different treatment being given to boy infants compared to girl infants. According to Elliot, “Girls should be praised as much for their strength as their beauty; boys as much for their tenderness as their ball-handling abilities”, which seems to be a golden rule that should be followed if we wish to rid ourselves and society of gender stereotypes (1).

In attempts to prevent the picking of a “unnatural” gender identity, society creates boundaries for genders based on sex. For example, boundaries are created when socially constructed ideas such as “Only girls like dolls” or “Only boys like trucks” continue to circulate around society and become believable and acceptable standards, yet these standards actually have no inherent meaning since they are created by society. This is how gender role expectations are created and maintained in a society overtime. Not abiding to these gender norms can lead to rejection by peers, family, and a society. An individual that strays from what is ruled to be normal by society often becomes permanently marked by a negative stigma by other members of society.

It is evident that our society has some serious homophobic concerns regarding gender identity. We fear the erasing of gender differences which is described as the the fear of “psychological sterilization”, as discussed in the Ms. Magazine Blog about a J. Crew advertisement featuring creative director Jenna Lyons and her son painting his toenails hot pink. When we fear psychological sterilization, the erasing of gender differences, and the fear of encouraging children to  explore other gender identities that are “unnatural” we create limitations and boundaries on the sex and gender spectrum. The problem is that gender identity is not something natural that someone is inherently born with. Similar to race, gender is socially constructed and is dynamic in the sense that gender role expectations change as a culture changes. This instability that exists should be evidence that gender roles are not hard-wired in people, but are rather created generalizations based on a culture’s beliefs and history.

We need to keep an open mind free from the fear of homogenizing males and females and have an understanding of the broad spectrum of sex and gender that exists. So if a girl wants to play football and if a boy wants to do hair and makeup, then so be it. It is troubling that our society is very quick to judge anybody that deviates from the norm. Children and adults likewise should be able to feel free to explore gendered possibilities based on personal preference.

References:

Eliot, Lise. Pink Brain, Blue Brain: How Small Differences Grow Into Troublesome Gaps– And What We Can Do About It: Chapter 2, “Under the Pink or Blue Blankie”. Mariner Books, 2009.  Print.

Pregnant Women who Abuse Drugs Should not be Criminalized

A growing list of states have criminalized pregnant women who use drugs if they don’t seek treatment. These laws are doing more harm than good.
 The number of women who are suffering from alcohol or drug addiction while they are pregnant is growing more and more every day. Addiction during pregnancy happens because of certain factors like stress, life problems, lifestyle and more. Im not saying resorting to drugs is right when you’re going through a rough patch. But there is a better way to address the problem, rather than throwing pregnant women in prison. Treatment is available and may save a life. This is not just harmful and dangerous for the mother’s health and overall being, but for the growing child in her womb as well.

While the intention of these laws may be to inhibit pregnant women from using drugs, they often have the adverse effect, driving a limited resource population away from treatment and towards behaviors that can further harm mothers and babies. In treatment programs there is a ranking. People who snort drugs think they are better than people who shoot them. People who use alcohol or pills think they are better than people who use illegal drugs. But no matter what pregnant women use, they are always considered the worst.

Pregnant women with substance abuse problems encounter shaming by health care professionals and society when they seek medical treatment. Hospital staff often castigate pregnant women by blaming them, and saying the baby is having a hard time because they are a bad person. Women feel judged so they lie to health care providers, and lack of information makes it harder to provide the best treatment that is needed for the mother and baby. This fear of judgment and condemnation drives pregnant women who use drugs underground, away from drug treatment or prenatal care. Some women try to stop taking drugs abruptly on their own, though the hasty ending of opioids can lead to pregnancy complications. Just because a woman is pregnant doesn’t mean she can magically overcome a chronic condition. You nor me can overcome diabetes while pregnant, but we can manage it. The same holds true for addiction. There is an opportunity to reach these women because of the pregnancy. We need to make sure that laws aren’t criminalizing them and pushing them further away. If I was in this position I would sure rather get put into a rehab facility and get clean rather than go to jail and potentially lose my baby.

There are symptoms in many babies born to mothers who use drugs. These symptoms are called neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS). They include excessive crying, irritability, poor feeding, trembling or diarrhea and occur in about half of babies exposed to drugs in the womb. The symptoms of NAS are manageable and treatable, especially if health care providers are made aware of the situation early. This requires a level of trust between patient and provider. When I see sick babies with withdrawal symptoms, I want someone to blame. But blaming the mother is not best for the baby. A fetus can die if the mother tries to detox quickly because she is ashamed of how people will judge her if she takes methadone. I think we should create a standard best practice policy for how to treat pregnant women that is based on research, not angry reactions.

Eighteen states now address drug use by pregnant women in their laws for child neglect, some states even going as far as to make it possible to take away children based on one positive drug test. Tennessee is the only state that specifically says it is a crime to use drugs while pregnant. ProPublica states that in 2014, after Tennessee became the only state to pass a law criminalizing drug use during pregnancy, a federal judge added six years to a woman’s meth-manufacturing sentence because she was pregnant. Wow. In MA The Supreme Judicial Court ruled in 1993 that drug tests taken at birth can be used as evidence in a criminal prosecution. A woman won’t be charged if she was “actively enrolled in an addiction recovery program before the child is born, remained in the program after delivery, and successfully completed the program. The law’s constitutionality is questionable, along with the fact that it targets only women. Fathers aren’t held responsible for any drug related harm to babies. Im sure you can agree with me on that one.

            

Women are not intentionally trying to harm their babies. They are sick and need medical help. And providing that help is the best way to help them and their baby. Would you remove children from parents who consume alcohol, smoke cigarettes, or take prescription pain killers? Even though they are not illegal drugs, they are the greatest prenatal threat. Jumping to the conclusion that all pregnant women who use drugs are bad and should be punished makes the situation worse. When a person is criticized by others, it is harder to make productive change. The best way to be helpful is to approach from a viewpoint of non-judgment and figure out a way to address the problem. When women are treated in a nonjudgmental manner and provided with services, it produces better outcomes for women and children as well as cost savings for society. I want to help these women get into rehab facilities to help and support them overcome their addiction and be suitable to take care of their child. Nobody wakes up and says, ‘I want to be a heroin addict.’ I can’t assume that someone who has an addiction doesn’t love their child, and neither should you. If she can get back on her feet, she is in a far better position to be a good parent.