CHILD CARE
It is heartening to know that the idea of children as property is alive and well and supported by no less an august body than the ACLU (“In the Name of the Children,” by Barry Siegel, Aug. 7).
The women who decide to have their children while continuing to abuse drugs have a constitutional right to bear their stillborn or damaged babies. They also have an inalienable right to have society pay for their freedom to exercise “control of the body and autonomy in the reproductive process.” We, on the other hand, apparently have no right to carry out our concerns for the quality of life that these babies face.
SUZANNE PAROSKI
Camarillo
I was greatly disturbed by Siegel’s “In the Name of the Children.” I firmly believe that urine drug screening should only be completed after a specific consent has been obtained, as this information is probably not necessary in planning the care of the antepartum/postpartum patient. At the same time, alcohol and nicotine pose a more widespread (although less fascinating) problem in the obstetric population, yet tests for these substances are not routinely run.
The job of physicians and nurses is to treat the patient in a holistic manner. This means treating the baby and the mother. To prevent a mother from seeing her newborn is unconscionable. To facilitate the removal of a postpartum patient from a hospital for incarceration in jail is nothing short of malpractice.
PATRICIA SALKEY, R.N.
Colton
I applaud nurse Shirley Brown and prosecutor Charles Condon’s efforts to protect the lives of newborn crack babies. It doesn’t take a sociologist to figure out that child abuse starts early and is often at the hands of drug-addicted parents.
As for Lynn Paltrow, she and other ACLU attorneys are contributing to the demise of America. Paltrow appears to be telling the addict that drug behavior is tolerable. And women like Theresa Joseph, Ellen Knight and Patricia Williams should be governmentally sterilized. It doesn’t take a genius IQ to figure out that if you’re poor and on drugs, having a baby might not be a good idea.
I was exposed to an alcoholic environment as a child; I grew up in urban black America and yet I do not feel that Knight and Williams were singled out. Rather, they should be grateful that someone is trying to snatch them from drug addiction. If the insults they endured help them turn their lives around, then they were well served.
CHERYL THOMAS
Los Angeles
“In the Name of the Children” lists “spontaneous abortions, pre-term deliveries, stillbirths and underdeveloped newborns with jumpy nervous systems” as being the effects of prenatal cocaine exposure. We work in the genetics department of a large medical center and know that the list is, in fact, much more extensive and that it includes congenital malformations, seizures, painful withdrawals, mental retardation, learning disabilities and lifelong debilitations. Perhaps if Paltrow knew about these effects her heart would go out to the innocent victims her clients have damaged.
The rights of women to make decisions regarding their bodies should be protected. However, when a decision is made to carry a fetus to term, the mother must assume responsibility for the fetus. If we will not prosecute these women, perhaps we can offer their children a longer statute of limitations that would enable them as adults to prosecute for their lifelong debilitations, just as some children have prosecuted their parents for incest.
HELEN HIXON
JESSE HANIFAN
Los Angeles
Shame on the city of Charleston for arresting the drug-using mothers right after childbirth, putting the babies at a greater risk emotionally by not giving them a chance to bond. When I gave birth four years ago in New York, the mothers of crack babies visited and fed them, while being required to undergo treatment before taking them home.
Nurse Brown’s efforts are noble. However, I would be scared to seek prenatal care if it were under threat of going to jail if I didn’t. What these women really need is prenatal care and treatment made readily available in the first trimester, without threats.
MIRIAM GARBER
Torrance
These women produced drug-addicted children at public expense and now they want $3 million from the public? To frame this as a reproductive rights issue is a red herring. They chose to carry their babies to term. Now do we taxpayers have a choice not to pay for their babies’ drug treatments, for the special education and potential lifetimes of unemployment?
K. KLARIN
Santa Monica