What’s wrong with Wisconsin’s “Cocaine Mom” Act?

I read the New York Time’s October 23^rd article “Case Explores Rights of Fetus verses Rights of Mothers” and was initially dumfounded. I was dumfounded because the question of a women’s rights verses the fetuses has been answered time and time again. I was also dumfounded because it’s complicated. Explaining what’s wrong with Wisconsin’s “Cocaine Mom” Act is complex because it makes something we generally consider morally repugnant (that is drug use by pregnant women) illegal. Yet the law still fundamentally violates women’s rights and should be declared unconstitutional.

The issues of a fetus’s rights verse it’s mothers was most famously and notably decided in Roe v. Wade when the Supreme court ruled that a women’s right to bodily autonomy was fundamental. This right is so fundamental, the court ruled, that it guarantees us freedom from government intrusion when it comes to the personal issue of weather or whether or not to beget children.

            What makes Wisconsin’s “cocaine mom” act more complicated is that the law does not attempt to interfere with one’s choice of whether or not to begat children but rather how and in what way one does so.

            I tend to agree that someone who willing becomes pregnant and freely intends to bring a child into the world, is morally obligated to act in such a way to make that life as healthy as possible.  However moral obligations do not necessitate legal obligations. Simply put, there are lots of things we consider morally wrong, but don’t have laws to declare them illegal. For example it would be morally repugnant to accost my young child about their body and eating habits to the point that they developed a severe eating disorder.  But we wouldn’t make such a thing illegal because it would interfere with my first amendment rights, however wrong it may be. For whatever reason we seem to be willing to sacrifice more when it comes to bodily autonomy than we do for free speech.  

            As a society we should work on bigger and better solutions to drug and alcohol abuse. Education, support and aid are what these women need. The current system makes women afraid to go to the doctor, which harms the fetus even more.

The implications Wisconsin’s law are scary, because the value the fetus wellbeing over the mothers freedom.  How much are we willing to sacrifice for a future being’s potential well being? Can the government compel women to stay bed ridden if the doctor decides the fetus’ wellbeing is at stake? What about smoking while pregnant, should that be illegal? Drinking? How about diet? Sleeping on your back while pregnant can be dangerous for the fetus, should there be a law against that? All those things can affect a fetus’ wellbeing in serious way. This is a very slippery slope, and enacting the Wisconsin law flirts with that slope.

            The problem with Wisconsin’s “cocaine mom “ act is that it throws all those things into the realm of possibility. It gives third party workers, like doctors and social workers, the power to make decisions that violates a women’s fundamental right to bodily autonomy based on speculation or misinformation. It puts women’s bodily autonomy at extreme risk and starts us on the road to the dystopia of Margaret Atwood’s Handmaid’s Tale.  In the most extreme cases, like Ms. Beltran, it gives the fetus rights  (such as the right to a court appointed lawyer) that are not afforded to the mother. It puts pregnant women rights in the hands of the government and treats them as vessels instead of human beings with rights.  It’s unconstitutional for the same reason the Court declared abortion constitutional. The law violates a woman’s rights to bodily autonomy and privacy. We have to consider this right absolute if we want to maintain pregnant women’s status as human beings with rights. If we compromise this right we begin to view pregnant women as objects to carry babies instead of human beings.