The Pregnancy Criminalization Law is none of the government's business

Commentary on the Resolution: In the interest of being fully clear, I'd like to begin by going over what the debate is about. Pro has not clearly stated a thesis, but my interpretation of her argument is, "The government should not arrest women on assault charges for using illegal drugs during pregnancy." I consider this to be the most fair and charitable interpretation, but Pro can offer further clarification if she disagrees.Introduction: My argument is based on the assumption that governments have an obligation to protect their citizens from harm. This obligation includes the right to inflict punishments on people in order to deter such harm. I will defend this assumption if Pro chooses to make it the focus of the debate, but it is accepted by nearly all political ideologies. Since drug use during pregnancy causes harm to infants, the government is allowed, and indeed required, to punish individuals who partake in such acts.Arguments:(1) Drug use during pregnancy causes harm to infants.Pro's own sources concede this fact [1]. According to "The 'Drug Baby' Myth and Its Consequences on Children", "...there are obviously serious health risks with any drug use during pregnancy..." The paper by Lorenn Walker is primarily concerned with the social consequences of labelling children as "drug babies" - a separate topic from this debate. Because of this focus, it is concerned with the comparative effects of illegal drugs, especially crack cocaine, and legal drugs, such as alcohol and tobacco. However, for the purposes of this debate, we are concerned with whether illegal drug use during pregnancy is harmful to infants at all, not with how harmful it is relative to other risks.The list of specific effects of illegal drug use during pregnancy is well documented and long [2] - a summary on Wikipedia mentions premature birth, birth defects, and attention deficit disorder as consequences of prenatal cocaine exposure. Prenatal methamphetamine exposure has similar effects. Prenatal exposure to marijuana is apparently worse - it is known to cause a litany of physical and mental defects.(2) The government should punish people who willfully cause harm to others.Assuming that the government is obligated to protect its citizens from harm, it must back up its active protection with threats of punishment. Studies have shown that the more people believe they are likely to be punished for criminal activities, the less likely they are to commit crimes [3]. In this specific case, the government can deter women from harming their children by using drugs during pregnancy with the threat of punishment that is intrinsic to an assault charge. By no means is this the only tool that the government should use to prevent this kind of behavior - but it must exist as an option of last resort.(3) The government has an interest in preserving public health.The government and all the citizens of a country suffer as public health declines. Less healthy people are less productive, resulting in fewer goods and services for the average person, and lowered tax revenue for the government. The increased healthcare costs and reduction of government income are a burden that must be borne collectively. Consequently, the government is justified in taking actions to improve public health. The extent of government intervention must be limited according to the individual liberties of citizens, the amount of funds available, and other competing considerations. The government is exercising this prerogative entirely legitimately by attempting to reduce the number of infants born with health problems caused by drugs through use of the criminal justice system.Rebuttals:(I) ProtocolPro did not organize her arguments in any specific way, so I am going to offer rebuttals to them by summarizing their claims in a rough order. I will try to be as charitable in my interpretation as possible when I am paraphrasing. This form of organization to make my own responses easier for readers to follow - it is not intended to be binding on Pro in any way.(1) Imprisoning these offenders is a waste of tax dollars; it would be better to spend the funds on treatment.I urge readers to remember that we are discussing offenders who are charged with assault by virtue of the effects of their drug use upon their unborn children. Their drug use in itself is a secondary issue. Therefore, although I will agree that drug addicts should receive treatment, I will also maintain that those who intentionally cause harm to others to satisfy their drug habits are entirely deserving of incarceration. The cost of the punishment is justified by the deterrence that it creates.(2) Prenatal exposure to illegal drugs does not significantly harm infants because it is no worse than exposure to cigarettes.As I mentioned above, saying that illegal drugs are as harmful as legal drugs is not the same thing as saying that illegal drugs are not harmful. They have been shown to be very harmful. All this suggests to me is that smoking while pregnant should also be a criminal act, but that is outside the purview of this debate.(3) Cessation of drug use during pregnancy can cause miscarriage.This is not a good argument against the law for a number of reasons. Most importantly, the intention of the law is obviously to incentive women to cease drug use before becoming pregnant at all. A woman could not stop using drugs midway through her pregnancy to avoid charges - when she is pregnant and has used drugs, she has committed the crime. Secondly, miscarriage is still preferable to birth with physical and mental defects from a public health perspective. The former is a short-term injury suffered by a single person, the latter results in a person who may be a healthcare liability for decades. Finally, miscarriage results in the death of a fetus, and a fetus does not have a right to life in the United States. However, when a child is born with birth defects, the harm is suffered by a person entitled to the full protections of the law.(4) This country is supposed to be a capitalist society with individualism.There is no obvious conflict between having a capitalist economic policy and laws that restrict drug use during pregnancy. This issue is at best tangentially related to free trade. The individual liberties of the mother are no being illegitimately restricted anymore than they are when people are prohibited from causing direct physical harm to others in general. It would make more sense to say that the individual rights of the infant are being protected.(5) This issue should be addressed through the public health system, not the criminal justice system.There is no reason why an issue cannot be addressed through multiple channels. Drug addiction is a health issue, and should be addressed from a public health perspective. However, when drug addiction causes direct harm to innocent third parties, it becomes a criminal justice issue as well.(6) This law is too harsh.There is no reason to think that it is more or less harsh than laws that prohibit assault in general. Assault is a very serious crime which can have permanent and devastating consequences for its victims. It is entirely appropriate for it to be punished harshly.(7) This law can cause women to lose their children.If a woman is addicted to illegal drugs and uses them during pregnancy, that is an entirely legitimate reason for her to lose custody of her children.Conclusion:The Pro argument often conflates the public health concerns of drug addiction with the criminal justice concerns of causing harm to an infant. The criminal justice concern cannot be ignored. Additionally, the Pro argument is riddled with factual inaccuracies and red herrings that distract from the argument.Commentary on Sources:Pro inflates her list of sources with definitions of commonly used words and citations of facts that are not in dispute and do not help her argument. This creates the illusion of detailed research where none has occurred, and it introduces unnecessary tedium into the debate. I have limited my sources to those that were directly related to factual matters that might be in dispute. I remind voters to take this into account when awarding the sources point.Sources: [1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://tinyurl.com...