HARD LINES TO DRAW

The high court must decide how far authorities may intrude to keep unborn
children safe.

Which is scarier: an epidemic of women harming their children by taking
cocaine during pregnancy, or a government that uses any means at its
disposal to find them out and prosecute them?

That's the Hobson's choice before the U.S. Supreme Court, in a case
involving a woman in South Carolina who was arrested after hospital
officials reported her positive test for cocaine to police.

Lori Griffin was arrested 11 years ago after the test results were
forwarded to police from Medical University of South Carolina.

Officials still defend the program, which is a collaboration between the
hospital and city prosecutors in Charleston. The program checks women with
a history of cocaine use or whose prenatal exams suggest possible use.

The program later was changed to give the women an option of treatment
rather than arrest. But 10 women sued, saying the testing violated the
Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches.

Society has what lawyers would call a compelling interest in rooting out
drug use, especially by pregnant women. But is that interest so compelling
as to override the Fourth Amendment, which prescribes that American
citizens will be "secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects
against unreasonable searches and seizures"?

Having a hospital test for drug use and then refer the patient for
prosecution certainly appears to be a warrantless search.

Moreover, it's more than a little troubling that medical professionals
would be placed in the position of essentially being agents for law
enforcement. Whatever happened to patient confidentiality?

Indeed, the American Medical Association has indicated its concern about
that breach of confidentiality in a friend-of-the-court brief in the case.

Those in favor of the program make a good moral case for it. "Do we put
mother's privacy first or the baby's right to a normal life?" says a lawyer
for the hospital.

Still, there are many other cases in which societal intervention over a
parent's wishes would lead to better care for children. Where do we draw
the line? May authorities, for instance, enter a home to prevent a parent
from feeding his or her children fatty foods?

And if authorities have the legal right to prevent drug use from harming an
unborn child, where does that put abortion rights?

These questions are not easily resolved. And they'll only get more
complicated as time goes on, and as technology makes it more and more
convenient for authorities to intrude into private lives.

We need lines drawn. And it's certain that whatever line the high court
draws in this case won't be the last line.