EDITORIAL WAS WRONG ON 'METH MOM' PROSECUTION

The Oct. 27 editorial on the prosecution of the "meth mom" is very confused.
While it is passionate, its reasoning is jumbling up suppositions that don't
even need to be addressed.

The point of the legal case is that a mom knowingly ingested an illegal
substance, obviously engaging in an illegal activity, which resulted in the
death of her child. That's it.

There is no venture into discussion of an unborn child. The risky activities
mentioned by the editorial (alcohol, cigarettes, prescription medication,
riding horses and off-roading) are not inherently illegal.

There is no gray area, fuzzy boundaries or "difficult legal, ethical and
moral questions about a woman's rights during pregnancy" here. Peter
Carlisle's "campaign" to prosecute drug users is not new; he is defining a
new dimension to the prosecutor's duty. To say such prosecution will deter
pregnant drug abusers from seeking prenatal care is presuming greatly these
people would even go there in the first place.

The poor babies who are hapless victims need someone to stand up for them.

Lei Medeiros

Mililani