Pennsylvania Supreme Court: Drug use during pregnancy isn’t child abuse hotair.com/archives/2018/…
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court overruled a lower court which had determined that a woman could be held liable for child abuse because she used drugs during her pregnancy and gave birth to a baby who spent two weeks detoxing in a hospital.
The reasoning here is simple: Prior to birth a fetus isn’t a person thus the law can’t protect them from harm.
Two judges dissented, arguing that this case should rest not on whether the fetus was a person at the time of the abuse (i.e. when mom was using drugs) but whether it was a person at the time the injury took place (when the baby spent two weeks in a hospital detoxing).
The argument made by the woman’s attorney is that it would be counter-productive to make women liable for actions that harmed their unborn children:
“Almost every major medical and public health organization has recognized that punishing women for drug use during their pregnancies is counterproductive to public and private health,” wrote lawyers for the mother, identified by initials in court records.
“The rationale here is simple — women with a substance abuse disorder during pregnancy need treatment, both for their drug use and prenatal care...”
And “... the threat of being punished by the state will drive women away from treatment, thus risking their own and their child’s health,” her lawyers argued.
Yesterday the NY Times published a massive editorial which devoted several thousand words to arguing that fetal personhood is a danger to women’s rights. Here’s a very small sample:
“Anti-abortion activists have patiently been working to pass fetal protection laws not only in hopes of establishing that a fetus is a person entitled to full rights, but also to create a vehicle for overturning Roe v. Wade.”
“Many of these activists are hoping that the new conservative majority on the Supreme Court is prepared to take that step.”
“Alabama, which has prosecuted more pregnant women in the name of fetal protection than almost any other state, last month became the only state to amend its Constitution to give “unborn children” a right to life(!!), a guarantee conflicting w/legal protections enshrined in Roe”
“Alabama and other states would better serve the interests of children by putting less energy into manufacturing legal fights and more into ensuring the dignity and protection of women.”
(Because unborn children don’t deserve dignity IR protection, apparently)
(Because unborn children don’t deserve dignity IR protection, apparently)
The entire editorial is a one-sided argument which starts from the presupposition that unborn babies should have no rights and concludes based on a handful of cases that fetal personhood is an imminent danger to women’s rights because it could eventually overturn Roe.
Every human right is limited when it comes into contact with another human being. Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. That’s why pregnancy is such a special case and abortion is such a contentious issue.
Assuming from the start that one side has no rights to protect makes it easy to argue the case that women’s rights are being unfairly infringed upon. No doubt the PA court ruling and the @nytimes editorial will be a hit with people who already agree with the underlying premise.
But not everyone does agree with this premise, and for good reason. A viable unborn baby (now as early as 24 weeks) is a baby who should not be killed or endangered. Of course not all babies born this early survive, but many do.
Preemies are persons and are just as much persons the moments before they are born.
