At the Register: This Law Is Not Pro-Life

We all want to get tough on people who hurt babies. But this new law in Tennessee is the exact wrong way to go about it. This law is not pro-life.

I was also relieved beyond belief to hear that “risks of narcotics to newborns have been exaggerated, according to medical authorities who say that withdrawal symptoms, if they occur, can be treated with no long-term effects.”  Via the New York Times, here is more information from National Advocates for Pregnant WomenObviously we’re not hunky dory with the idea of drug addicts raising babies, but I was under the impression that a baby born addicted to drugs was doomed. Not so.

Print Friendly

  • Lisa Cook

    As the (adoptive) mother of a brilliant, beautiful, slightly hyperactive child who was almost certainly exposed to various non-ideal substances in utero, I can speak to the truth of this. Drug exposure in utero does not spell doom for baby.

  • margaret1910

    My daughter is a nurse in a large, level III NICU. She has several years experience in dealing with the babies exposed to crack and meth. Although they generally have good outcomes, the suffering she has described is truly terrible. FAS is apparently much worse for long-term outcomes.

  • suburbancorrespondnt

    The first link isn’t working. I get a blank page.

  • Anna

    It’s so true that this is not pro-life. This kind of law acts like pregnant women are obliged to view themselves as incubators. No wonder pregnancy is then seen as a dehumanizing imposition. Also, where does it end? Are we all legally culpable if we sleep on our backs after 14 weeks, take baths over 99 degrees, eat lunch meat, or do whatever else the latest edition of “What To Expect When You’re Expecting” has deemed dangerous?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X