(Published October 8‚ 2003)
The U.S. Supreme Court has dodged its best chance to end the hypocrisy of a South Carolina's statute that sends women to prison for using drugs during pregnancy.
The high court rejected an appeal Monday from Regina McKnight, a South Carolina woman who is serving a minimum of 12 years in prison for using crack cocaine during a pregnancy that resulted in the stillbirth of her daughter. McKnight, a mother of three with no prior convictions, is the only woman ever convicted of "homicide by child abuse" under a 1997 state law that makes it a crime to harm a fetus by taking illegal drugs or by violence. Although more than 70 women have been charged under the controversial law, most have either pleaded guilty to a lesser offense or had charges dropped after they entered drug treatment programs.
The McKnight case has drawn attention worldwide. Many observers see the law as part of the strategy of anti-abortion advocates to grant legal status to the unborn, thereby undermining Roe v. Wade, the infamous decision that legalized abortion. Defenders, including several South Carolina solicitors, say the law is needed because it gives authorities a tool to force irresponsible women into treatment programs, minimizing damage to their babies.
We have several problems with the law, not the least of which is that it has been enforced mainly against poor black women. We agree with the S.C. Medical Association and other agencies charged with protecting the health of women and infants that the law discourages drug users from seeking prenatal care. McKnight herself didn't seek medical attention until she was more than eight months pregnant.
Certainly, no one can object to the state trying to protect the health of an unborn child. The problem is how to accomplish this worthy goal. Interestingly, the U.S. Supreme Court in 2001 ruled that a mandatory drug testing program for pregnant women at a Charleston hospital was unconstitutional. That ruling undercut a campaign by former S.C. Attorney General Charles Condon to arrest drug-using moms.
What troubles us the most about this law is that ingestion of narcotics is neither the most common nor the most harmful practice engaged in by pregnant women. Studies have shown that more serious damage can occur to fetuses when women drink alcohol or smoke tobacco during certain crucial stages of their pregnancy. No prosecutor, so far as we know, has had the courage to arrest a martini-guzzling, cigarette smoking society mom for endangering her unborn child -- although such situations assuredly exist.
We would find the law less obnoxious perhaps if legislators would adequately fund treatment programs and if money spent on prosecuting and incarcerating drug moms would go toward educating women about risks to their baby. South Carolina, however, ranks last nationally in expenditures for drug treatment. The reality is that our politicians would rather spend $300,000 keeping women like Regina McKnight behind bars than facing up to the larger issues of fetal endangerment.
If such practices qualify as a crime against society, crack moms are not the worst offenders. They are simply the easiest target.
|
The Supreme Court dodged a chance to inject fairness in the fight to protect the unborn. |
| Copyright © 2003 The Herald, South Carolina |