METH MOM PROSECUTION RAISES QUESTIONS

As Hawai'i's war on ice demands solutions, City Prosecutor Peter Carlisle is
vigorously pursuing a manslaughter conviction against Tayshea Aiwohi, a
31-year-old Kane'ohe woman whose newborn son died in 2001 from alleged
crystal meth poisoning.

Aiwohi is accused of using ice in the final days of her pregnancy. Her trial
is expected to begin in December, and she faces a maximum prison sentence of
20 years.

Carlisle says it doesn't matter whether she passed the drugs on to her son
before or after the birth. The point is, a live baby, not a fetus, died
because of the mother's reckless drug use.

And that's hard to argue with. Of course we don't want pregnant women
endangering the health of their offspring, in or ex utero. We want to do all
we can to protect fetuses and babies from drug exposure.

But if you follow Carlisle's reasoning to its logical conclusion, what's to
stop the criminal prosecution of pregnant women who drink alcohol, smoke
cigarettes, take risky prescription medication or ride horses and off-road
vehicles?

Carlisle is even considering prosecuting mothers whose babies don't die, but
are damaged by drugs or fetal alcohol syndrome.

It sounds like a great disincentive for drug and alcohol use, but the danger
is that criminalizing behavior during pregnancy is more likely to deter
addicted mothers from seeking pre-natal care.

Infant mortality rates suggest such disincentives have made little
difference in South Carolina, which treats drug addiction during pregnancy
as child neglect and imprisons the mother.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld that law earlier this month when it refused to
hear an appeal from a South Carolina woman who was convicted of homicide by
child abuse for killing her fetus by smoking crack cocaine.

This does not bode well for the future of legal abortion in America because
once you define a fetus as a human being separate from the mother, abortion
arguably becomes an act of killing.

Carlisle isn't concerned at this point with fetuses. But once the child is
born, he says, the law is clear.

That may be true, but his campaign nonetheless raises difficult legal,
ethical and moral questions about a woman's rights during pregnancy where
the boundaries are anything but clear.