The Guardian (USA)

Alabama is prosecutin­g a mom for taking prescribed medication while pregnant

- Moira Donegan

A36-year-old Alabama woman is facing felony charges for filling a doctor’s prescripti­on. Kim Blalock, a mother of six, suffers from severe back pain caused by degenerati­on of her spinal discs. “There are days that I can’t get up,” Blalock has said. Her condition worsened over the years following surgeries and car accidents. An orthopedis­t prescribed hydrocodon­e, an opiate pain killer, and she started using it occasional­ly when the pain became too much to handle. She stopped taking her prescripti­on during her most recent pregnancy, but as her bump grew, the weight added pressure on her back, and the pain worsened. Midway through her third trimester, she couldn’t take it any more, and refilled her prescripti­on. She gave birth to a healthy baby boy soon after, this past September. Out of caution, she told her doctor about medication­s she had taken during pregnancy – including the hydrocodon­e. That’s where the trouble started. After her son tested positive for hydrocodon­e, an investigat­ion was launched. The state child services agency found no wrongdoing, but the local police and district attorney pressed on. Two months after she gave birth, seven armed officers raided her house, terrifying her children.

Blalock is charged with prescripti­on fraud; prosecutor­s allege that she committed a crime when she failed to inform her prescribin­g doctor that she was pregnant before refilling her hydrocodon­e. It’s a novel charge for such a case, but Alabama has a long history of prosecutin­g pregnant women under a strict reading of a statute against “chemical endangerme­nt of a child”, which classifies substance use during pregnancy as a form of child abuse. Since 2006, when meth labs were appearing across rural communitie­s, Alabama has made it a felony to expose a child to a chemically toxic environmen­t. The law was meant to enforce heavier penalties on people who make drugs around children, exposing them to the vapors that are emitted in the creation of crack and meth. But prosecutor­s quickly began deploying the law against pregnant women, interpreti­ng a “chemically toxic environmen­t” to mean the pregnant body itself.

And so, in Alabama, women’s bodies became one of the most hotly contested fronts in the “war on drugs”.

But drug laws are being used to criminaliz­e pregnant people throughout the US. Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia have such laws, known as “chemical endangerme­nt of a child” statutes, on the books. Whatever their intent, such laws in practice often enable prosecutor­s to charge drug use by pregnant women as a felony. Enforcemen­t is not merely a matter of increasing charges and punishment­s against defendants who happen to be pregnant: at least 18 states legally require that doctors who know about substance use during pregnancy – like Blalock’s obstetrici­an – turn their patients in. A woman carrying a healthy pregnancy could be turned into the police just for being honest with her own doctor.

Nationwide, the results of such laws have been chilling: California prosecutor­s charged a woman with murder – via chemical endangerme­nt – after she gave birth to a stillborn infant, claiming that her use of methamphet­amine while pregnant was tantamount to homicide. A judge dismissed the charges in May, but did not rule that California’s homicide statutes can’t be used against pregnant women who consume drugs.

But illegal drugs are not the only ones women are being arrested for

taking. A shocking number of cases have been brought, both in Alabama and around the country, against women who merely took their medication as prescribed while they happened to be pregnant. After a 2016 investigat­ion found that more than 500 Alabama women had been prosecuted under the state’s chemical endangerme­nt law for filling their prescripti­ons while pregnant, the state legislatur­e clarified that the law was meant to apply only to recreation­al drugs, not prescripti­on drugs. Yet Blalock, who merely filled her own prescripti­on, is still being charged for taking her meds. Her prosecutio­n suggests that Alabama authoritie­s are looking for creative ways to limit the rights of pregnant women, regardless of the clearly expressed intent of their own legislatur­e.

The case raises troubling questions. Since Blalock is being charged with a felony for not disclosing her pregnancy, does that mean that pregnant people in Alabama have an obligation to share such sensitive informatio­n – even when they haven’t been asked? Since prosecutor­s claim that it was illegal for Blalock to take her meds while pregnant, but was not illegal for her to take them when she wasn’t pregnant, does that suggest that pregnancy negates a patient’s right to medical treatment? Are some conditions worth treating in patients who aren’t pregnant, but somehow not worth treating in patients who are?

And what about the mandatory reporting elements that are included in so many of these statutes – how will this hollowing-out of doctor-patient confidenti­ality impact health outcomes? It’s hard not to dwell on the realizatio­n that if Blalock hadn’t been frank with her doctor, she would have been spared this entire ordeal.

For many women, this will be the takeaway: don’t trust the doctor. When laws incentiviz­e women to be dishonest with their medical providers, or forgo medical care entirely while pregnant, it’s not clear how those laws can be said to ensure the safety of a fetus. If anything, they seem to be discouragi­ng the practices that lead to good pregnancy outcomes.

In the meantime, Blalock is still suffering. “It really has taken its toll,” she said of her felony charge. “I didn’t get to bond with my baby. I’ve had severe postpartum depression with this baby.”

If there’s any so-called “child endangerme­nt” in this case, it’s not coming from her.

Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist

For many women, this will be the takeaway: don’t trust the doctor

 ?? Photograph: Ink Drop/Alamy Stock Photo ?? ‘Her prosecutio­n suggests that Alabama authoritie­s are looking for creative ways to limit the rights of pregnant women, regardless of the clearly expressed intent of their own legislatur­e.’
Photograph: Ink Drop/Alamy Stock Photo ‘Her prosecutio­n suggests that Alabama authoritie­s are looking for creative ways to limit the rights of pregnant women, regardless of the clearly expressed intent of their own legislatur­e.’

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States