I will concede that this is a massive overreaction on the state's part, but that's as far as I go.

No one is supposed to take anything from someone else's prescription bottle. My medications are mine; and no one has my permission to touch any of it. And the last person on earth that should want to go into someone else's medication is a pregnant woman. It doesn't sound like she had any regard whatsoever for her unborn child, or even if she was aware that Valium might pose a risk.

If harm actually had befallen her unborn child because she took someone else's Valium, would we be so outraged that the state chose to involve itself?

http://www.theet.com/news/local/percent-of-harrison-county-babies-born-to-mothers-who-use/article_04006cf1-1b29-5390-a8dd-18bc32cedd13.html

"50 percent of Harrison County babies born to mothers who use drugs"

How do you get the attention of young mothers if they simply ignore "it will harm your baby".

If they ignore "it will harm your baby" do they get a free pass or are there some consequences?

"BABY BORN WITH DRUGS IN SYSTEM" - This headline would have prompted an entirely different reaction from most.

Amy, if her child is with an adult that "first does no harm" then that's being proactive.

If the mother learns from her previous actions, accepts that her child requires her to sacrifice her needs over the child's, and is coherent enough to instill confidence in her ability to raise a child then give the kid back. That too is being proactive.

Life's a bitch and bad behavior sometimes bites you on your ass. Cry me a river.

Yes it's scary when the "govumint" gets involved in people's lives but the alternative is much worse.

This is the sort of thing that prosecutorial discretion is supposed to cover. Here's the deal that should be offered to Shehi: plead guilty to a charge of drug posession. Sentence is three months of probation with biweekly drug testing. If at the end of the three months all tests have been clean, the conviction is expunged. Of course, that would require some creativity and effort on the county's part. (Although whatever expense is incurred is probably still less than the costs associated with jailing someone.)

And... Etowah County. Hmm.

I will add this too: the non-consented blood test is another example of evidence from a warrentless "administrative" search being used in a prosecution.

@ Patrick, who wrote:

"No one is supposed to take anything from someone else's prescription bottle. My medications are mine; and no one has my permission to touch any of it. And the last person on earth that should want to go into someone else's medication is a pregnant woman. It doesn't sound like she had any regard whatsoever for her unborn child, or even if she was aware that Valium might pose a risk."

Forgive me, but - nonsense. It's really none of your business, or mine, what anybody chooses to put in their body, as long as she didn't steal it. And all this guff about harm and risk to her unborn child is just that - guff - as evidenced by the fact that the child has suffered no ill effects, and, indeed, occasional use of Valium during pregnancy is GRAS and doctors prescribe it all the time. Most concerns about what mothers do during pregnancy are vastly-overblown mountains-out-of-molehills, a result of the US fetishization of pregnancy and motherhood as some sort of delicate miracle of nature that can be ruined by the slightest insult.

This is drug war hysteria, plain and simple. It also smacks of what I well-recall from my time in that arena - an easy case. She's middle-class, has a stable life and is easy to find. It's a easy warrant to get, an easy charge to prove, she can be arrested during normal business hours and she'll beg for a plea deal so her stable, normal life doesn't get completely ruined. It's high-fives all around at the prosecutor's office - the fact that this 'success' had precisely zero effect on the actual issue the law was passed to prevent (mothers harming their babies by taking drugs while pregnant) doesn't matter. It's a "win" and that's all that matters.

This is what you get when you pass laws that seek to prevent some vague, unlikely and undefined harm because it's 'for the children'. The time it takes for police and prosecutors to turn those laws around and apply them for completely different purposes that suit their needs, can be measured with an egg-timer.

How the legislature can have thought that a mandatory drug test for pregnant women looking for evidence of crime was a good idea would not end up putting innocent women in jail is just beyond me. It is an entirely-predictable consequence of making laws based on worst-first thinking and 'what-if' rationales. Buffoons.

llater,

llamas

I'm with Cousin Dave on this - there should have been some sort of prosecutor discretion here.

Sure, I understand the reason for the law; but, after testing the baby, after investigating by a social worker, the prosecutor should have said there is no case here. period. But, we know that doesn't happen because dropping the case doesn't add to the prosecutor's resume. He needs to get MORE convictions!

As for testing her blood without her consent; I'm not sure I agree with that unless the baby was showing some sort of signs or something of drug abuse. Do they test ALL women? Or was there something about her that flagged them? Maybe it was because her baby was premature? (The article doesn't say, and I could see a journalist leaving out such a critical part of the story to fit his "government overreach" angle)

I'll echo Charles's question: Do they test ALL the women? All the newborns?

What happens to women who take some type of drug before they know they're pregnant? (I don't know how much of any substance one would have to ingest in order for it to show up, or how long anything stays in the baby's system.)

I'm not sure how a baby is better off in the child welfare system than with his mother when mom took ONE pill that is safe in small amounts. The effect of the drug in a small amount is probably no worse than the effect of stress on the developing fetus.

But people feel self-righteous about this type of thing.

I'm actually against Cousin Dave. The issue here is prosecutorial discretion was used. As Llamas points out, from the prosecutor's point of view this is an easy case to win requiring a minimum of effort or resources. There is almost no down side and significant up side. You have to be careful when you give people these kinds of powers.

It seems to me they wanted to prosecute because they knew where they could find her. Real drug addicts have a tendency to disappear without a trace, meaning they can't be prosecuted.

It's not that they test the mother's blood without her consent (I realize I wrote inartfully in my prior post, I should have been more clear). It's that the medical facility tests the mother for a range of things, mostly for sound medical reasons, but that the state law makes them mandated reporters. Read the article for an exact description of how this has been made to work.

The article also explain exactly how this situation came to pass. The law was originally intended to protect children from exposure to the dangers of meth labs. Fair enough. Real dangers to actual people - no problem. But then judges prosecutors and police officers interpreted it to mean exposure of an unborn child to controlled substances while in the womb. And, since the law was never meant to be used in this way, it doesn't address anything to do with quantities, or intent, or actual effect - so now women are being arrested and jailed for any amount of any controlled substance, no matter how small, no matter what it is, in a blood test result. In principle, a woman could be arrested and jailed for taking medication properly prescribed to her by a doctor.

It's an intersection of drug war hysteria and the fetus-as-person tendency of the pro-life movement. Women have already been arrested and charged under this statute on the mere suspicion that they may be pregnant. It's just insane. This is exactly what I meant when I wrote "The time it takes for police and prosecutors to turn those laws around and apply them for completely different purposes that suit their needs, can be measured with an egg-timer." A law intended to punish you for cooking meth while your child was in the next room, is now being used to punish you for taking what may be appropriate and necessary medication while pregnant. And the bail, fines and jail sentences are just outrageously inconsistent with any measure of actual harm or risk. This woman faces 10 years in jail for doing no harm to anybody.

llater,

llamas

I feel like that old man in the movie MOON STRUCK ("I'm so confused.")

Damn. #BLM idiots, SJWs creating rape out of a hug, cops shooting people in the back 30 feet away from them, and deese prosecutors doing what llamas says.

I'm thinking END TIMES are just around the corner.

Going to fix another cup of coffee and get a fig bar.

If the mother learns from her previous actions, accepts that her child requires her to sacrifice her needs over the child's, and is coherent enough to instill confidence in her ability to raise a child then give the kid back. That too is being proactive. - Bob in Texas

Well Bob, given your status as a world renown OBGYN and endocrinologist, please tell us the how taking one Valium was significantly more harmful than the hormonal imbalances cause by brain locked into "awake" mode for an abnormal period of time

It's that the medical facility tests the mother for a range of things, mostly for sound medical reasons, but that the state law makes them mandated reporters.

I wonder why no one has tried arguing 4th amendment protections as the state is forcing hospitals to act as law enforcement officers

Okay, I transcribe medical dictation for specialist areas, and have for many many moons. One of the specialty areas I deal in is neonatal ICU babies. Here in Louisiana they also test all the time on mothers and the baby's meconium stool. They don't do it every time, but if there is the whiff of drug use by the mom or dad in the history, or any sketchy behavior by anyone at any time, then they test. Social Services gets involved if the meconium is positive. They do a home visit, they check everything out. Rarely, and I mean rarely do these babies get taken into custody. This is a case of grevious overreach by an obviously underworked prosecutor or, might I suggest, maybe the facts aren't all in yet. It sounds like they might not be in this case. Maybe she has a record or domestic violence history in her past. Whatever the case, just know that this is not a new thing. They test for this all the time. Just follow your doctors' orders. Don't be a dumbass. You don't wanna know what a baby goes through when it's in withdrawal.

might I suggest, maybe the facts aren't all in yet. It sounds like they might not be in this case. Maybe she has a record or domestic violence history in her past.

I sure hope all the facts are in given they dropped the case, returned her child, and the DA actually gave her an official letter clearing her of any wrongdoing

Interesting, complex story.

This is the sort of thing that prosecutorial discretion is supposed to cover.

That seems to be the crux in this case, if the reporting is believable, and if I understand it correctly. The next county over, according to the story, the women would've been released w/o further investigation.

The story does talk about how small-town politics and family squabbles play into these cases. Maybe there's more to story concerning the well-connected ex-husband or something.

And the town gossip paper "Just Busted" w/ mugshots didn't seem to help much in this case.

This is what you get when you pass laws that seek to prevent some vague, unlikely and undefined harm because it's 'for the children'.

Hmmm. "Vague...undefined harm"?

Here's a fun, recent local story:

After the baby was born, the parents said she showed signs of withdrawal from heroin. Police said Brown continued to use heroin and started using methamphetamine while breastfeeding her baby.

The father reportedly supplied the drugs and knew the mother was breastfeeding. According to investigators, the couple ignored advice from family and friends to take the baby to the hospital.

On November 3, medical crews responded to another hotel to a report of a five-day-old infant who was not breathing. The baby was taken to Mercy Medical Center where she was pronounced dead. Redding police contacted Reed and Brown at the hotel and began the investigation into their baby's death.

During a search of the couple's hotel room, investigators located heroin, methamphetamine, marijuana, cash and drug paraphernalia. Investigators said both Reed and Brown were known to them as heroin addicts and sellers.

The baby's autopsy revealed the cause of death was "polypharmacy-heroin and methamphetamine dependence/addiction." Polypharmacy-heroin is a combination of prescription pain relievers and heroin.

That's 5-days after birth that the baby died, or maybe even sooner.

And the mother started a gofundme site to raise $3,500 for a headstone because she said the death was caused by SIDS.

Ugh.

There were already law about abuse and murder.

Why pass one that can be used to criminally prosecute women taking needed medications while pregnant?

Especially in a state that would outlaw abortions for any reason.

"One night a few weeks earlier, Shehi and her ex-husband got into a huge argument on the phone. She was in the late stages of what had been a difficult pregnancy; she was achy and bloated, and her ankles felt like they might explode. After the fight, she called her mother, Ann Sharpe, a retired teacher and guidance counselor who lived nearby. “She was really upset — ‘I’m miserable, I’m sick, I can’t sleep,’ ” Sharpe recalled. “I said, ‘Do you have something you can take?’ ” As Shehi later told investigators, she had swallowed half of one of her boyfriend’s Valiums to calm herself down."

From the story Amy linked to. My bullshit detectors, are going off right now.

You do not come up positive on a drug test from taking half a
Valium two weeks before the birth (and the drug test)

Why is there so much incredibly sloppy journalism out there?

"It's really none of your business, or mine, what anybody chooses to put in their body, as long as she didn't steal it."

Suffering from a little tunnel vision, llamas forgets the duty of the public servant, trucker, pilot and heavy equipment operator to remain alert - in which case, the performance of their job is certainly our business.

-----

Somebody's missing something though. In Florida at least, several seniors have been arrested for carrying their prescription medicine in containers other than that obtained from the pharmacy. Yes, Grandpa, if you can't remember whether you took your painkiller this morning, you can't put it in one of those timed/dated dispensers, because THAT MAKES YOU A TRAFFICKER AND A CLASS 3 FELON.

Someone can test positive for benzodiazepines up to six weeks after taking Valium.

Urine drug tests are "presumptive positive", meaning that it's presumed that if the drug being tested for is present in the sample the test result will be positive. But it doesn't mean that if the drug isn't present the test will be negative. False positives are very common, and quite a few common drugs can cause them.

Some examples of drugs that can cause a false positive result on a urine drug test: the antidepressant Zoloft; the antibiotic Bactrim; the antihistamine diphenhydramine (Benadryl, Tylenol PM, Advil PM, Sominex, Unisom); Valerian Root; and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs like Aleve (naproxen), Lodine, Daypro, Tolectin.

A research study done a few years ago found that out of 522 drug tests that were positive for benzodiazepines, 160 were false positives. False positives are so common, and so many things can cause them, that no action should ever be taken against anyone for a positive test until a different confirmatory test of the same sample, such as a gas chromatography-mass spectrometry test is done.

Way too many people with the power to legally ruin other people's lives are too ignorant to be making decisions based on the results of drug tests.

Some drugs in the same pregnancy risk category as Valium (pregnancy risk category D):

Paxil, Depakote, tetracycline, lithium, Dilantin, losartin (Cozaar) all ACE-inhibitors, Pepto Bismol (3rd trimester) aspirin, ibuprofen (3rd trimester) Many pregnant women take those drugs throughout their pregnancy, and it's considered to be no one's business but theirs and their healthcare provider's. Birth defects may occur, but they're very rare.

Would they arrest a woman and take her baby if she took an aspirin, ibuprofen or lithium two weeks before giving birth?

The risk of birth defects caused by a single dose of Valium would be so infinitesimally small, I doubt that it's ever happened anywhere in the world. The risk for harm from a glass of wine would be less infinitesimal. But taking a baby away from his mother is definitely harmful one hundred percent of the time.

Intermittent use of alcohol and Valium throughout pregnancy wouldn't be nearly as likely to damage an unborn baby as a perfectly legal abortion.

As llamas said: "And all this guff about harm and risk to her unborn child is just that - guff... Most concerns about what mothers do during pregnancy are vastly-overblown mountains-out-of-molehills."

Alcohol is a much greater risk to an unborn baby than Valium. Consider the baby boomers whose mothers weren't all that inclined to change their drinking habits while they were pregnant - the result wasn't mass devastation of that generation.

The government's cops, lawyers and judges do more damage to the lives and children of people who use drugs than drugs ever did.

"Someone can test positive for benzodiazepines up to six weeks after taking them"

Yes, if they are a regular heavy user, and the drug has had a chance to build up in their system, but half a Valium two weeks later?

Bullshit, I don't believe it,

By the way, the grand jury failed to return an indictment against this woman, and Valium was not the only drug she tested positive for at the Hospital.

I do agree that the prosecutor was out of line here, but if this woman was on Medicaid, that gubmint hospital has an absolute right to test you for drugs. It's the laws that need to be changed folks, not hospital procedures.

If the prosecutor needs to investigate, let him investigate.

What prescription pills does she get and in what amounts? How much real life sudofed does she buy? Does she have a criminal record and previous encounters with the cops or hospitals due to drugs. Has she had previous encounters with CPS for younger children? What are they about?

Is there any reason to believe she is not a reasonably competent parent?

THE PROSECUTOR KNOWS ALL OF THAT with a 2 minute search from her desk.

At that point, if nothing shows up, just fucking forget about it already.

No pleading guilty to anything, no harassment, just get the fuck out of our hair.

Isab, what am I missing?

> Valium was not the only drug she tested positive for at the Hospital.

vs. article

> Shehi saved a medical report from one of those prenatal hospitalizations. It shows no traces of any controlled substances in her system. Except for the benzodiazepine, nothing turned up in her drug tests when she gave birth, either.

It's true that the longer a person takes a benzo, the longer it can be detected on a drug test after the last dose. The longer an individual's body takes to metabolize a drug, the longer it can be detected on a drug test after the last dose.

Valium is a long acting benzodiazepine; it stays in your body a long time. Its biological half-life ranges from 20 to 100 hours (average about 40). The half-life of its active metabolite desmethyldiazepam - aka nordiazepam, also the active metabolite of several other benzos - ranges from 36 to 200 hours - average about 105.

Most drugs are detectable for about 5.5 half-lives after their peak concentration, but some can be detected longer. It varies from person to person, and on the type and sensitivity of the test, and is affected by how the drug is distributed, metabolized and eliminated, how much was taken, which of its metabolites is being tested for, and whether the person had any drugs, supplements or foods that affect the metabolism of the drug. For example, Zantac, Tagamet and grapefruit juice can make Valium stay in your system longer; St. John's wort can make it metabolize faster.

If a healthy young adult took one half of a 2 mg Valium they might pass a drug test 5 days later - I've heard of that happening. If they took half of a 10 mg tablet, or if they weren't exactly being forthcoming about how much they took and when, it's going to take longer. If they test negative in 5 days I'd be inclined to believe the test was defective.

A drug test for "benzodiazepines" is probably testing for the metabolite nordiazepam or one of it's metabolites, and not for some specific benzo. So the detection window is going to be a lot longer than 5.5 half lives of the parent drug itself.

105 hours X 5.5 = 525 hours = about 3 weeks. If the half-life in a particular individual is closer to 200 hours, it's going to be about 6 weeks.

The urine drug screen we use where I work says it detects benzos, including Halcion, with its half-life of 2 hours, 99.9% of the time 5-7 days after last use. The detection window for a long acting benzo like Valium is many times longer.

Here's part of a description of a home use, single panel drug test for benzos you can get really cheap from Amazon or Walmart:

This rapid on-site Benzodiazepine drug test kit (Also known as: Benzo, Halcion, Librium, Rohypnol, Valium, Roofies, Tranks, Xanax) is FDA approved and offers 100% correlation with a much more expensive laboratory screening... This Benzodiazepine drug test will detect the presence of benzodiazepine down to 300 ng/ml and can uncover prior drug use up to four weeks since the last ingestion.

*In spite of manufacturers' claims, research has shown that the odds of a false positive on a drug test are pretty high.

*Someone in trouble for testing positive for benzos three weeks after they said they took one-half of a pill sounds a lot to me like someone who blows a .24 on the breathalyzer insisting he only had two beers. But if the person who tests positive was not known to be a user of abuser of drugs I would be inclined to believe them until a confirmatory test validated the result.

*Urine drug screens can detect cannabinoids up to 30 days after last use.

*Urine drug screens are a lot better than they were 10 or 20 years ago. A lot of people blow drug screens because they depend on outdated hearsay.

@jerry

Actually you aren't missing anything. It was my misreading. The article Amy linked to said it was Valium. The article in the local paper about the arrest said she admitted to taking Xanax.

You google this woman, you find out she works for a psychiatric treatment facility.

Two bits the Xanax didn't come from her *boyfriend*, and it wasn't half a pill.

Thanks Isab for the explanation.

There's definite harm to the baby here - when they took away his mother. There's no harm from a single dose of Valium, and probably not much from frequent use throughout the pregnancy.