Do People Who Support "Traditional Values" Value Pregnant Women?

I have to thank Andrea Lafferty, of the Traditional Values Coalition for her response to a piece I wrote opposing Personhood USA's efforts to give full constitutional rights to the unborn from the moment of fertilization. In her commentary she hopes to discredit my organization, National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW) by exposing our commitment to all pregnant women, including those who love their children but are unable to overcome a drug problem in the short term of pregnancy.

Ms. Lafferty argues that NAPW has an "extremist agenda." Specifically she highlights the fact that NAPW "defends drug-addicted women from prosecutions for endangering their unborn babies." Indeed we do, and at least for one reason we would have thought Ms. Lafferty and her Coalition, would approve of: because threatening pregnant women with prosecution creates an incentive for them to have abortions.

Given how hard it is for most people to overcome an addiction problem quickly (just ask Rush Limbaugh) as well as the difficulty of obtaining appropriate treatment (especially for pregnant and parenting women), laws that threaten to punish women who carry their pregnancies to term in spite of a drug problem place substantial pressure on them to get unwanted abortions.

In fact, this kind of prosecution in North Dakota (one of the states where a personhood bill has been introduced) compelled a pregnant woman to have an abortion. In 1992 Martina Greywind, who was approximately twelve weeks pregnant, was arrested. She was charged with reckless endangerment based on the claim that by inhaling paint fumes, she was creating a substantial risk of serious bodily injury or death to a "person" -- her "unborn child." After her arrest, a lawyer for the anti-abortion group Lambs of Christ filed a petition seeking to have the woman's brother, Ken Greywind, appointed her legal guardian. Mr. Greywind explained in court papers "I believe she is contemplating an abortion in order to have the charge of reckless endangerment dismissed."

Ms. Greywind did obtain an abortion. And indeed, the prosecutor dropped the charges citing the fact that she had "terminated her pregnancy."

We admit it. NAPW opposes laws that create an incentive for women to terminate otherwise wanted pregnancies. We would hope that such opposition would provide common ground for NAPW, Ms. Lafferty and her organization.

We would also hope that we could work together to spread the good news about these mothers and their children. Ms. Lafferty says in her comments about NAPW that we defend mothers who "are addicting their unborn babies and subjecting them to extreme risks of mental retardation or death." Ms. Lafferty, like many people, believes that a pregnant woman who uses any amount of an illegal drug - and crack cocaine in particular -- will inevitably harm her "unborn child."

For nearly two decades, the popular press was filled with inaccurate information about the effects of in utero cocaine exposure. Media hype, however, is not the same as scientific evidence. In 2004 leading researchers in the field of prenatal exposure to drugs signed an open letter explaining that these women are not "addicting" their "unborn babies." "Addiction" they wrote "is a technical term that refers to compulsive behavior that continues in spite of adverse consequences. By definition, babies cannot be 'addicted' to crack or anything else."

Moreover, these experts as well as federal courts and leading federal government agencies now confirm that "the phenomena of "'crack babies' . . . is essentially a myth." As the National Institute for Drug Abuse has reported, "Many recall that 'crack babies,' or babies born to mothers who used crack cocaine while pregnant, were at one time written off by many as a lost generation... It was later found that this was a gross exaggeration." And, as the U.S. Sentencing Commission has concluded, "[t]he negative effects of prenatal cocaine exposure are significantly less severe than previously believed" and those negative effects "do not differ from the effects of prenatal exposure to other drugs, both legal and illegal." Most recently the New York Times, relying on actual experts, including the pediatrician featured in this NAPW video, set the record straight with a story entitled "The Epidemic That Wasn't".

So instead of assuming the worst, we could join forces and together oppose punitive approaches that are known to encourage some women to have abortions, and to discourage many more from seeking prenatal care.

NAPW knows that there are not two kinds of women -- those who have abortions and those who have babies. Sixty-one percent of women who have abortions are already mothers, and another 24 percent will go on to become mothers. Over the course of their lives, 85 percent of all women bring life into this world. NAPW advocates for all of them. We don't expect Ms. Lafferty to join us in our work to ensure that women have access to safe legal abortion services, but we do hope she will support our efforts to ensure that women who do want to go to term aren't punished for doing so.

Comments

[OtayPanky]

"[t]he negative effects of prenatal cocaine exposure are significantly less severe than previously believed" and those negative effects "do not differ from the effects of prenatal exposure to other drugs, both legal and illegal."

===

I'm 100% in favor of a woman's right to choose, but I find it difficult to listen to blather that so obviously defies common sense.

Women who are pregnant and in their right mind - and who want to have the child - won't even drink a single glass of wine. The dangers of fetal problems from exposure to drugs and alcohol is too well documented to be denied. The fact that not all women who use crack have crack babies doesn't mitigate that fact.

The mother and the fetus share a common biogical environment. The fetus is necessariy at far greater risk for toxic pharmicological reactions because it is in the process of explosive growth.

Political correctness and agenda-driven arguments are as senseless from the left as they are from the right.

[CourtroomMama]

It just goes to show that "common sense" is not always borne out by the scientific evidence. Check out the links, Otay, they might change what seems like "common sense" -- particularly the Times article.

The truth is that the effects of illegal drugs like crack cocaine and marijuana have yet to be disaggregated from the well-documented injurious effects of poor-or-no prenatal care, poor nutrition, poor maternal health prior to pregnancy, exposure to certain environmental hazards, alcohol or cigarettes, or other things attendant to a pregnancy for underprivileged women.

Perhaps among women of great privilege, wanting a baby means giving up all the toxins du jour (alcohol, caffeine, shellfish, soft cheeses, cold cuts... the list changes all the time). But for women who are addicted to drugs, it has nothing to do with "wanting" or "not wanting" a healthy baby; it is about whether women who want to carry to term are provided adequate support in doing what they need to have a healthy pregnancy, which includes much more than just abstaining from drugs.

Putting aside the fact that no woman, even the most fervent adherent of "What to Expect," can guarantee the outcome of a pregnancy, even if it were absolutely 100% documented that crack cocaine causes some unique syndrome, do you think that policies that punish pregnant women would solve the problem? Here's a hint: has the "War on Drugs" prevented people from using drugs or helped those who are addicted?

[gotborked]

In the last paragraph, where did you get your percentages for women who have/will have both aborted and birthed babies?
You say "Sixty-one percent of women who have abortions are already mothers, and another 24 percent will go on to become mothers." You then go on to say, "Over the course of their lives, 85 percent of all women bring life into this world."
Did you get the 85% number by adding the 61% and 24% figures, or is that just a coincidence? If it is just the sum of the 61% and 24% figures, then it is misleading to say that the 85% number applies to "all women," because it really applies to "all women who have had abortions".

[LiberalDem]

they don't value pregnant women as anything other than a walking, talking uterus.

[historymatters]

"So instead of assuming the worst, we could join forces and together oppose punitive approaches that are known to encourage some women to have abortions..."

yes, but if the various sides of the abortion debate actually tried to seek common ground, then they wouldn't be able to keep demonizing each other.

I applaud NAPW for their efforts. I find the commentary about the effects of in utero exposure to drugs especially interesting.

[Zahavti]

It appears to me that the family values movement creates some of the very situations that it criticizes. Severe outside judgment regarding circumstances of conception or pregnancy, and decisions deemed an attack on family values can create the pressure to abort - a choice also denounced.

Also, it is often said that we in the reproductive rights movement care only about abortion; yet, Ms. Lafferty wants to now discredit this work on behalf of pregnant women? I believe that people are tired of the rhetoric and division and that the work will speak for itself.

[Maerwynn]

You've hit the nail squarely on the head.

It seems that those who advocate traditional values NEVER think of pregnant women.

Barring IVF, without pregnant women, how do you plan to have that family with whom to share love and caring?

Pregnant women are often vilified if circumstances force them to consider and/or have an abortion.

Or they are vilified if they choose to have a child they cannot support or take care of and are forced to bring the child up on welfare.

The pregnant woman, her choices and her child must be valued or a claim to advocate traditional values is baseless.

[CharmiO]

When I think of traditional values, I think of a family being very home-based and close-knit, with good, wholesome dinners prepared from scratch at home and sharing of love and caring, and growing into new roles in life. I don't particularly think of pregnant women. I am seriously missing the point of this article.

[coolmaiden]

The story you mentioned (the inhalant addict arrested for endangerment) sounds like the plot of "Citizen Ruth," a hilarious, biting satire of the abortion debate directed by Alexander Payne. The movie shows that neither side really cared about the addict at the center of the debate, but instead only worried about furthering their agenda.