Safe Harbor Act Case Study

The use of heroin, cocaine, and other illicit drugs has become a public health concern especially during pregnancy. Maternal substance abuse has become an issue during the crack epidemic in the 1980’s; however, there is an alarm rate of infants born addicted to heroin. More than 3.7% women have indicated the uses some form of illicit drugs during their pregnancy, as well as 1.9 % reports binge drinking (Bhuvaneswar el at., 2008; Grant el at., 2009). With this in mind, more than 375,000 infants are born to maternal substance abusers each year costing over $100,000 in medical expenses covered by the state (Reitman, 2002).

In many high schools around the country, student athletes are using drugs. “The percent of students that have drunk alcohol is 72.5% while the number of students who have used marijuana is 36.8%” (Report: Nearly Half of High School Students Using Drugs, Alcohol). The students believe that since they are athletes that they do not need to abide by the rules because they feel more superior and that the narcotic will not hurt or affect them. Implementing random drug tests for athletes will create a positive image and not hurt others or themselves. Schools need to have drug tests for student athletes because drugs effect relationships, using drugs have consequences, and lastly they have a major effect on the body.

In 2014, after seeing a significant increase in babies born with neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS), Tennessee began criminally charging pregnant women who use drugs (Sakuma, 2014). Supporters of the new legislation refer to it as a “velvet hammer” used to convince the pregnant drug users into going into treatment, or doing jail time. However, critics are concerned that this legislation will be just another barrier for a group of women who are already at risk, (Sakuma, 2014).

Since the 1980’s, debate about how society should deal with the problem of criminalizing pregnant women who abuse drugs or alcohol has become a nationwide issue. Many states argue that the primary concern is making sure women have healthy pregnancies and healthy children. However, policies that threaten women with criminal prosecution and the potential loss of parental rights drive women away from pregnancy-related care. Constitutionally, enacting states to create these laws is unsound and places women in situations of risk. Less than a week ago a bill was sent to the governor of Tennessee after being approved by both the house and the senate, that would allow for women to be prosecuted if she takes an illegal drugs while pregnant. Although this bill is made to seem like it is promoting healthy pregnancies, many groups are urging the governor to veto it.

While legislators believe that this policy will effectively sort out the “worst of the worst” (Gonzales & DuBois, 2014), this reporter doubts the efficiency and utility of the policy. If the aim is to force mothers into treatment, then perhaps sending them to jail is not the most effective method. Those defending the law have sent mixed messages around how it should be carried out, some describing the law as a “velvet hammer” while others employ it as a strong-arm tactic used to bust women who use narcotics (Beyerstein, 2014; Goldensohn & Levy, 2014). This, in addition to the previous legislation protecting mothers, makes it uncertain how a woman will be received when she reveals her substance use. Likewise, the chances of getting arrested

Tennessee decided to put up a law trying to protect tax payers and the future generation from facing issues with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. A case was showed where a 26 year old woman Mallory Loyola was the first charged with this law after traces of methamphetamine were found in her urine shortly after having her child. She was arrested and thrown in jail not ever spending a day with her new born baby. Fetal Alcohol syndrome is not the only thing women have to worry about while on drugs. If they let Mallory go home with her child while on meth, it could easily affect the home life and still destroy the child 's life without it being in their system. Case studies also shown by (Miller, 2014) is even though a women is charged with assaulting

New Tennessee law that criminalizes mothers for using drugs while being pregnant. A mother became the first women to be arrested and charged for breaking the new Tennessee law that criminilizes mothers for using drugs while being pregnant. She admitted to smoking meth just a few days before giving birth, both her and her baby tested positive for methamphatamine. State senator, Mike Bell states why he noted against the measure, “I represent a rural district…there’s no treatment facility for these women there, and it would be a substantial drive for a woman caught in one of these situations to go to an approved treatment facility. Looking at the map of the state, there are several areas where this is going to be a problem. “Dorothy Roberts from

The rationality of those who support the punishment of addicted mothers focus on the idea that maternal conduct could lead to potential detrimental effects upon the fetus and that prosecution of such behavior would serve as both retribution for the fetus and as a deterrent. Whereas those who advocate for the pregnant women view this rational as not only impermissible but also unconstitutional as in current legal standing the fetus has no rights that usurp those of the pregnant woman (Stone-Manista, 2009, pp.823-856). Advocates also suggests that the breadth of forces that lead to drug use in pregnant women have a prevalent cultural and social foundation that the proponents for deterrence and retribution ignore in favor of strict scrutiny. This conflict between women’s rights and fetal rights has caused a paradigm in the prosecution of pregnant drug users as the interpretation of criminal sanctions argues over the definition of ‘child’ as encompassing fetuses in the definition would then lay the foundation for punishment for a woman’s conduct during pregnancy (Stone-Magnets, 2009, pp.823-856). Though currently it is unconstitutional and legally impermissible to prosecute women with state child abuse statutes in regards to drug use during pregnancy; advocates of fetal rights continue to follow

Safe Harbor is a measure used in the United States to protect patient confidentiality and re-identification when disclosing secondary health information data and requires the removal of 18 variables from a dataset, including names, geographic subdivision, telephone number, address, occupation, medicare and photographic images (El Emam, 2013). By removing a large amount of patient identifiable information, health services are promoting patient confidentiality and preventing the re-identification through data links, from a privacy perspective this is compliant for the safe harbor’s intended purpose however, from a research perspective this limits the utility of patient information particularly in comparative and disparity studies (Warner, 2013). Additionally, the use of the safe harbor method would be insufficient when considering genetic health information as genetic information is able to identify specific individuals, as well as the if the method was used for longitudinal research studies, the continuous removal of identifiable data would not be sufficient to prevent the

At the point when private company proprietor Anthony Welichko saw people in general turning agains the police benefit as of late, he chose to take things into his own hands with this activity.

After reading the Huffington Post article and doing some more of my own research on the website provided, I found arguments that are very concerning. The first is that this issue is barely covered in the mainstream media. Most people do not know about this issue and how prevalent it is. Although it is not a majorly covered topic, it is argued on both sides if it is ethical. There has been a significant decrease in hospital births in Tennessee and it is largely due to the recent law passed giving means to arrest a mother if her baby is found to have narcotics in its system. The main argument here is if the law is deferring so many women from have safe births in hospitals, its giving the baby and the mother a much higher chance of having a dangerous

“Juvenile crime is on the rise, becoming more sophisticated, and Kids are beginning these behaviors at a younger age” (Wickliffe “Introduction”). Many studies have shown that children who are interested in sports are less likely to commit these crimes. Although having children involved in sports does not guarantee that they will stray away from criminal behavior, it does however, reduce the chances of them becoming involved. The earlier that children are involved in sports the better, because they could find that they truly enjoy them and wish to continue through middle and high school. A lifelong love of sports as a deterrent to less desirable behavior is something that society would like to promote. Teens who are involved in an extra-curricular activity like a sport are less likely to get in trouble, get better grades, and even live an overall healthier life (Servers “Reducing the Juvenile Delinquency Rate through Sports”).

While attending Salisbury University, I became fixated on the harsh punishment for pregnant substance abusing women. I was looking for a topic for a research paper, and I came across a journal article Jennifer Johnson. In 1989, she was charged for giving birth to her fifth baby who tested positive for cocaine at birth. She was charged with two accounts for give a control substance to a minor. What is interesting about Florida drug laws does not apply to fetuses (Reynolds, 2007). Many states have developed laws to punish substance using pregnant women for using alcohol and other illicit drugs during pregnancy.

The Safe Harbor law is there for many human trafficking victims, it not only provides assistance for human trafficking victims, to heal from the trauma of this crime, but this law also allows juvenile judges to hold hearings to determine whether a minor is a human trafficking victim and a procedure to temporality set aside the complaint for a crime such as prostitution or other related offenses. The safe harbor law is to try to ensure the safety and wellbeing of minor human trafficking victims. I would like to look into what procedures are set in place for minor’s vs adults, men vs female, because not only are children taken but adults are also, or they just are “stuck” in the world of human trafficking. Not only are women targeted, but so are men. How can we prevent such crimes from happening and how we can protect ourselves from falling victims? Even though no matter how much we do someone will always find a way to continue this crime of human trafficking, but the more we are aware of such things the more we can prevent and protect the victims. Ohio has a safe harbor law, but it does have many weaknesses, strengths, and has room for improvement. Education and training for all police personnel is crucial to help identify and protect the victims of trafficking, these victims can include adults, children, men and women. In the books, Hidden Girl and Renting Lacy, both these stories have personal experiences of what Shyima and Star went through, while the system failed Star,

The quote by John F. Kennedy - “There is always inequality in life. Some men are killed in a war and some men are wounded and some men never leave the country. Life is unfair” - seems to sum just about everything when life throws you a curveball. In tough times we all have to have a safe harbor. A safe harbor is a place or state of mind that one goes in times of worry or trouble, they go there to wait out the storm, to rest the mind, or to get away from worry.