Drug Testing of Pregnant Women Going to High Court September 28, 2000
News Summary
The U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide whether a hospital has the right to report pregnant women who test positive for illicit drugs, USA Today reported Sept. 22.The case pertains to the Medical University of South Carolina's practice of working with Charleston, S.C., prosecutors to identify women who test positive for cocaine use. Ten women were arrested either during pregnancy or immediately after giving birth before the program was put on hold pending the result of the lawsuit.
A lawsuit claims that the hospital's policy violates the women's constitutional protection against unreasonable searches.
Although urine tests and other searches require a warrant, attorney Robert Hood, who represents city and state officials in South Carolina, said the hospital's program meets the "special governmental needs" exception to the Fourth Amendment because of the health problems and financial costs associated with maternal cocaine use.
The women challenging the program argued that the drug-testing policy actually drove some women away from prenatal care and treatment programs.
Prior to reaching the Supreme Court, a federal appeals court ruled that drug testing was necessary and effective in helping mothers and their children. The court determined that the intrusion on the mothers' privacy was minimal. Furthermore, the judges ruled that a urine sample is a normal part of a pregnant woman's medical exam, so any infringement on her rights was negligible.
The women appealing the case to the Supreme Court, however, said that to conduct such a search without a warrant, government must show that the search is not driven by the priorities of law enforcement.
"The women entered the care of the hospital as free citizens. They were assured by the hospital that their medical records would be treated as confidential,'' said the filing signed by the women's lawyers, who include Priscilla Smith of the New York-based Center for Reproductive Law & Policy, and Charleston lawyer Susan Dunn.
"This deceptive scheme strikes at the core of the physician-patient bond, undermining the trust and confidence," added Smith.
COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE: