$500 million dollars are spent every year to care for crack babies. Yet, Congress has failed to move on the Medicaid drug treatment legislation. The new research shows there is no good reason to stall, the number of crack babies is growing each year. I have researched three articles that will show different views of crack babies. These women are addicted to crack, and don’t have the money or the resources to know where to begin to get help. Once these addicted mothers have the babies, they are in denial of their use of drugs. As a result of using these drugs foster care takes their babies. Women often go back to doing drugs, which is easiest for them, but in reality it is the hard life. In most states, the hospitals are only required to test for drugs. In other states, they simply only make a report to foster care of the women’s use of drugs. In few states mothers will face time in jail. The laws that are against crack moms are not sufficient for mom’s recovery.
In article one, Researchers estimated that the cost of caring for crack babies costs the country more than $500 million dollars a year. In this article," The cost of not preventing crack babies," (by The New York Times, written by Ciaran Phibbs, David Bateman, and Rachal Schwartz), it tells us how much a crack baby costs and the efforts that the people around them make. The cocaine-exposed babies were 50 percent more likely to require intensive care. Crack babies have twice as likely to have low birth weight. These babies spend extra border days in the hospital because social workers are deciding whether to place them in foster care. Foster parents step in and care for the newborn crack babies. During the time the babies are with their foster families, the mothers are able to go to a couple of drug rehab classes and are often able to get their babies back. These women still have drug addictions. The writers say, "Congress has failed. These women need more treatment.”
My second article is, "Children born to crack addicts have troubles, but they aren't doomed,” written by Laura Bauer. She explains the story of this mother who has had four children while using drugs. Dr. McMann explains that when crack babies start to grow they tend to grow small heads. He admits that most of them will become normal children with in time. Dr. Lester analyses of more than 4,400 children, who were exposed to crack during their mother’s pregnancy, found no significant effect on IQ or language development. After monitoring the children, researchers believe that cocaine exposure is less damaging than alcohol and tobacco use.
In the third article, “Toddler, newborn wrongly torn from family in stepped-up screening of pregnant women,” written by Troy Anderson. A woman, whose child had been placed in protective custody, cries out. "We started calling friends, but no one we know has gone through something like this. We were crying." Their son was tested positive with methamphetamine, but the mother has never done drugs before. The couple sued Los Angeles County government. “There are no rules, and if there is no one is following the laws,” says Lynn M. Paltrow, executive director of National Advocates for pregnant women in New York City. The judges seemed to be handling these positive toxicology screens like a drug war on women. The cases are different but it all comes down to most women not doing drugs while they are pregnant. She explains that the government should have pre-intervention programs on the addicted pregnant mothers. She claims that is the only way to keep children together with their mothers. Mothers who then feel like failures and children who then are moved around in foster care.
Some people believe that crack is more harmful to babies in the womb. Dr. Barry Lester, a professor at Brown University, insists that crack or meth do have effects on babies exposed to these drugs but the effects are small. The babies’ limbs become stiff. They also have trouble holding down their formula. Even sometimes the babies would have Parkinson-like trembling. These effects will tend to resolve within nine months. He explains that these babies are not damaged in the way they first thought. In addition Dr. Deborah Frank, from Boston University says, “It is not like you can walk into a classroom and say that kid over there was exposed to such and such drug. But you can walk in and say that kid was exposed to alcohol and has fetal alcohol syndrome.”
Yet what people should realize, that these studies are done on surviving babies. No matter if the drug is crack, cigarettes, or alcohol, the exposure in the womb increases the risk of complications, miscarriages, and stillbirth. Lynn believes the headlines publicizing a mothers arrest or jail time do to the mothers drug use doesn’t help. It scares women away from getting prenatal help. The access and support for health care need to be here for the women and the newborn baby. Others in the judicial system think differently. They believe by putting the women in jail they are protecting the life of the unborn child. Keeping mothers- to- be behind bars will cut of their access to the drug, as a result protecting the unborn child. These mothers cry for help and hide with their addictions. They are afraid to come out and say they need treatment. When these children are born, some mothers are required to meet with a parole officer for random testing. In most cases mothers do not show, which results in a warrant out for their arrest.
Currently there is only one state, South Carolina that holds prenatal substance abuse as a criminal act of child abuse and neglect. In 2004, Texas made it a felony to smoke marijuana while pregnant, resulting in a prison sentence of 2-20 years. Other states have laws that address prenatal substance abuse: While it may be harmful for a pregnant woman to use marijuana or other drugs, it is far more harmful to that child to have to endure the trauma of foster care. Congress should make such programs, such as drug recovery center for mothers who are pregnant. These women need a place where they can go and not be judged, or feel afraid. In article one, research have estimated about $125 million annually instead of the $500 million dollars should be spent on crack babies. Taxpayers could well come out ahead. I think that congress is mistaken because they overlook that these mothers need help. Drugs are an addiction; even if these women are pregnant it is hard for them to give it up.
In Los Angeles, up to 80 percent of women test positive, for methamphetamine, a drug that experts say produce very high rates of false positives. Up to 70 percent of the time it is false. “The system sounds problematic…. Because they are doing urine-only screens, and if they are not doing confirmation tests, they are going to have a lot of false positives,” said Dr. Barry Lester. They believe that there should be blood withdrawals to confirm a positive test. In Los Angeles the number of positive test results from pregnant mothers at the hospital tripled from 209 in 2003 to 568 in 2008. Nine out of ten of these babies are taken from their mothers. In California it is illegal for a social worker to remove a child solely on a positive drug test. There has to be signs of abuse or neglect to the child as well. “Nobody is following the law. The judges seem to be handling these positive toxicology screens like a drug war against women,” says a Beverly Hills attorney L. Wallace Pate. The hospitals are not submitting the correct forms. They don’t like to be put in a position where they could be sued. So the positive drug tests are collected by child services and they need to sort out the rest with the minimal information gathered by the hospital.
When I was a child, I used to think that I had perfect parents. It saddens me to think that other children might not think that about their parents. When I had my first born son, David, I wondered around the hospital humming to him. When I saw another newborn baby, and I wondered why this baby looked so down. "The baby is sick," I recalled the nurse saying. “Sick?” I had replied confused. "She is a crack baby," she answered. Still the sound of crack baby was confusing; the two words didn't make sense together. I held my baby tight, and couldn’t even imagine. I wrote about crack babies not because I think I am a better mother, or think they should be punished at full force. I simply think they need help. Overall, I believe the children need someone to speak out for them. An important point to make given by focusing on helping these mothers is to seek sobriety, instead of punishment. Congress overlooks the deeper problem of these women who smoke crack while they are pregnant.
New York Times. (Late Edition( East Coast)). New York, N.Y.:Oct 10, 1991. Pg. A.26
Troy Anderson. Daily News. Los Angeles, Calif.: Jun 29,2008.pg. A.1
Laura Bauer. McClatchy-Tribune News Service. Washington: Feb 18,2008.
In article one, Researchers estimated that the cost of caring for crack babies costs the country more than $500 million dollars a year. In this article," The cost of not preventing crack babies," (by The New York Times, written by Ciaran Phibbs, David Bateman, and Rachal Schwartz), it tells us how much a crack baby costs and the efforts that the people around them make. The cocaine-exposed babies were 50 percent more likely to require intensive care. Crack babies have twice as likely to have low birth weight. These babies spend extra border days in the hospital because social workers are deciding whether to place them in foster care. Foster parents step in and care for the newborn crack babies. During the time the babies are with their foster families, the mothers are able to go to a couple of drug rehab classes and are often able to get their babies back. These women still have drug addictions. The writers say, "Congress has failed. These women need more treatment.”
My second article is, "Children born to crack addicts have troubles, but they aren't doomed,” written by Laura Bauer. She explains the story of this mother who has had four children while using drugs. Dr. McMann explains that when crack babies start to grow they tend to grow small heads. He admits that most of them will become normal children with in time. Dr. Lester analyses of more than 4,400 children, who were exposed to crack during their mother’s pregnancy, found no significant effect on IQ or language development. After monitoring the children, researchers believe that cocaine exposure is less damaging than alcohol and tobacco use.
In the third article, “Toddler, newborn wrongly torn from family in stepped-up screening of pregnant women,” written by Troy Anderson. A woman, whose child had been placed in protective custody, cries out. "We started calling friends, but no one we know has gone through something like this. We were crying." Their son was tested positive with methamphetamine, but the mother has never done drugs before. The couple sued Los Angeles County government. “There are no rules, and if there is no one is following the laws,” says Lynn M. Paltrow, executive director of National Advocates for pregnant women in New York City. The judges seemed to be handling these positive toxicology screens like a drug war on women. The cases are different but it all comes down to most women not doing drugs while they are pregnant. She explains that the government should have pre-intervention programs on the addicted pregnant mothers. She claims that is the only way to keep children together with their mothers. Mothers who then feel like failures and children who then are moved around in foster care.
Some people believe that crack is more harmful to babies in the womb. Dr. Barry Lester, a professor at Brown University, insists that crack or meth do have effects on babies exposed to these drugs but the effects are small. The babies’ limbs become stiff. They also have trouble holding down their formula. Even sometimes the babies would have Parkinson-like trembling. These effects will tend to resolve within nine months. He explains that these babies are not damaged in the way they first thought. In addition Dr. Deborah Frank, from Boston University says, “It is not like you can walk into a classroom and say that kid over there was exposed to such and such drug. But you can walk in and say that kid was exposed to alcohol and has fetal alcohol syndrome.”
Yet what people should realize, that these studies are done on surviving babies. No matter if the drug is crack, cigarettes, or alcohol, the exposure in the womb increases the risk of complications, miscarriages, and stillbirth. Lynn believes the headlines publicizing a mothers arrest or jail time do to the mothers drug use doesn’t help. It scares women away from getting prenatal help. The access and support for health care need to be here for the women and the newborn baby. Others in the judicial system think differently. They believe by putting the women in jail they are protecting the life of the unborn child. Keeping mothers- to- be behind bars will cut of their access to the drug, as a result protecting the unborn child. These mothers cry for help and hide with their addictions. They are afraid to come out and say they need treatment. When these children are born, some mothers are required to meet with a parole officer for random testing. In most cases mothers do not show, which results in a warrant out for their arrest.
Currently there is only one state, South Carolina that holds prenatal substance abuse as a criminal act of child abuse and neglect. In 2004, Texas made it a felony to smoke marijuana while pregnant, resulting in a prison sentence of 2-20 years. Other states have laws that address prenatal substance abuse: While it may be harmful for a pregnant woman to use marijuana or other drugs, it is far more harmful to that child to have to endure the trauma of foster care. Congress should make such programs, such as drug recovery center for mothers who are pregnant. These women need a place where they can go and not be judged, or feel afraid. In article one, research have estimated about $125 million annually instead of the $500 million dollars should be spent on crack babies. Taxpayers could well come out ahead. I think that congress is mistaken because they overlook that these mothers need help. Drugs are an addiction; even if these women are pregnant it is hard for them to give it up.
In Los Angeles, up to 80 percent of women test positive, for methamphetamine, a drug that experts say produce very high rates of false positives. Up to 70 percent of the time it is false. “The system sounds problematic…. Because they are doing urine-only screens, and if they are not doing confirmation tests, they are going to have a lot of false positives,” said Dr. Barry Lester. They believe that there should be blood withdrawals to confirm a positive test. In Los Angeles the number of positive test results from pregnant mothers at the hospital tripled from 209 in 2003 to 568 in 2008. Nine out of ten of these babies are taken from their mothers. In California it is illegal for a social worker to remove a child solely on a positive drug test. There has to be signs of abuse or neglect to the child as well. “Nobody is following the law. The judges seem to be handling these positive toxicology screens like a drug war against women,” says a Beverly Hills attorney L. Wallace Pate. The hospitals are not submitting the correct forms. They don’t like to be put in a position where they could be sued. So the positive drug tests are collected by child services and they need to sort out the rest with the minimal information gathered by the hospital.
When I was a child, I used to think that I had perfect parents. It saddens me to think that other children might not think that about their parents. When I had my first born son, David, I wondered around the hospital humming to him. When I saw another newborn baby, and I wondered why this baby looked so down. "The baby is sick," I recalled the nurse saying. “Sick?” I had replied confused. "She is a crack baby," she answered. Still the sound of crack baby was confusing; the two words didn't make sense together. I held my baby tight, and couldn’t even imagine. I wrote about crack babies not because I think I am a better mother, or think they should be punished at full force. I simply think they need help. Overall, I believe the children need someone to speak out for them. An important point to make given by focusing on helping these mothers is to seek sobriety, instead of punishment. Congress overlooks the deeper problem of these women who smoke crack while they are pregnant.
New York Times. (Late Edition( East Coast)). New York, N.Y.:Oct 10, 1991. Pg. A.26
Troy Anderson. Daily News. Los Angeles, Calif.: Jun 29,2008.pg. A.1
Laura Bauer. McClatchy-Tribune News Service. Washington: Feb 18,2008.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCelina! I did'nt know much about crack babies as a nearly know now. You expressed yourself so well. I agree helping each other instead of judging is what this world needs in times like this. Bravo!
ReplyDeleteAs a foster mother, I disagree with quite a few points you make in this article. You said that being in foster care would be more detrimntal to the child than the mother smoking crack while pregnant. Do you think staying with a crack addicted mother is less harmful than being in foster care? Foster parents get a bad rap, and this article doesn't help. I am sorry, but there are several places were a pregnant woman can get help, if she wants it, but that's just it... she doesn't want it. If I gave my baby a crack pipe, I surely would go to jail, as I should. But if I smoke it while pregnant, people feel sorry for me. In my opinion, it is child abuse any way you look at it.
ReplyDelete