DRUG TESTS

Court Makes Right Call On Testing Without Consent

A woman doesn't lose her right to privacy just because she's pregnant.

That seems self-evident, but the U.S. Supreme Court still surprised people
this week when it said hospitals can't drug-test pregnant women without
their consent, and without a warrant, and then give police the results.

Women's reproductive rights, privacy protections and safeguards against
illegal search and seizure are all vulnerable in the current court.

But the 6-3 majority ruled wisely in the case of a South Carolina hospital
that worked with police to screen pregnant women for drugs during crack's
destructive heyday. The hospital didn't use the tests just to guide women
into drug treatment; it turned those who tested positive over to police.

The justices ruled that that made the already public hospital an even
clearer arm of the government, and made tests without consent illegal.

Although the purported goal of the policy was to get women off drugs so
they and their babies could be healthier, it didn't mention changing
prenatal care for the mothers or prescribing special treatment for the
babies, Justice John Paul Stevens noted in the decision. And since women
were taken from the delivery room to jail, law enforcement was clearly the
intent -- which could make fearful women avoid necessary medical attention.

Stevens rejected officials' claim that their desire to protect people
merited a so-called special needs exemption to the Fourth Amendment. Police
always want to help, he said. And previous waivers have been allowed only
in situations that denied extra privileges, such as playing after-school
sports; never have they been approved to collect incriminating evidence.

The court made the right call. Wanting to prevent the birth of
crack-addicted babies doesn't justify turning women's bodies into crime scenes.