Comparative analysis of state statutes: Reporting, assessing, and intervening with prenatal substance abuse

Social Policy Journal

Volumn 2, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 71-86

  Kang, Hyun Ah ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

Child abuse reporting law; Congenital substance abuse; Drug test; Drug affected infant; Drug exposed infant; Prenatal substance abuse; Toxicology test

Indexed keywords

EID: 34248603054     PISSN: 15332942     EISSN: 15332950     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1300/J185v02n04_06     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Adirim, T.A. & Gupta, N.S. (1991). A national survey of state maternal and newborn drug testing and reporting policies. Public Health Reports, 106(2), 292-297.
2. Cal. Penal Code § 11165.13 (2001)
3. Chasnoff, I. (1988). A first: National hospital incidence study. Chicago: National Association for Perinatal Addiction Research.
4. Chavkin, W., Breitbart, V., Elman, D., & Wise, P.H. (1998). National survey of the States: Policies and practice regarding drug-using pregnant women. American Journal of Public Health, 88(1), 117-119.
5. Dailard, C. & Nash, E. (2000). State responses to substance abuse among pregnant women. The Guttmacher Report [online], 3(6). Available: .
6. Ferguson et al. v. City of Charleston et al. 532 U.S. 67 (2001).
7. Fla. Stat. ch. 39.823 (2001)
8. Ind. Code § 31-34-1-10 (2002)
9. Jones, K.T. (1999). Prenatal substance abuse: Oregon’s progressive approach to treatment and child protection can support children, women, and families. Willamette Law Review, 35, 797-826.
10. Lieb, J.J. & Sterk-Elifson, C. (1995). Crack in the cradle: Social policy and reproductive rights among crack-using females. Contemporary Drug Problems, 22, 687-705.
11. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 119, § 51A (2001)
12. Minn. Stat. § 626.556 (2001)
13. Minn. Stat. § 626.5561 (2001)
14. Minn. Stat. § 626.5562 (2001)
15. Minn. Stat. § 626.5563 (2001)
16. Nev. Rev. Stat. 432B. 330 (2001)
17. NIDA survey shows high levels of substance use in pregnancy. (1994). Substance Abuse Funding News, 17, 15.
18. Noble, A., Klein, D., Zahnd, E.,&Holtby, S. (2000). Gender issues in California’s prenatal substance abuse policy. Contemporary Drug Problems, 27, 77-102.
19. Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 7003-5.3 (1999)
20. Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 7103 (1999)
21. Okla. Stat. tit. 63, § 1-550.3 (1999)
22. Paltrow, L.M., Cohen, D.S., & Carey, C.A. (2000). Governmental responses to pregnant women who use alcohol or other drugs. Women’s Law Project and National Advocates for Pregnant Women [online]. Available: .
23. Pelham, T.L. & DeJong, A.R. (1992). Nationwide practices for screening and reporting prenatal cocaine abuse: A survey of teaching programs. Child Abuse & Neglect, 16, 763-770.
24. S. D. Codified Laws § 26-8A-2 (2001)
25. S. D. Codified Laws § 26-8A-8 (2001)
26. S. D. Codified Laws § 26-8A-21.1 (2001)
27. S. D. Codified Laws § 34-23B-1 (2001)
28. S. D. Codified Laws § 34-23B-2 (2001)
29. S. D. Codified Laws § 34-23B-3 (2001)
30. S. D. Codified Laws § 34-23B-4 (2001)
31. S. D. Codified Laws § 34-23B-5 (2001)
32. 325 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/3 (2002)
33. 325 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/7.3b (2002)
34. 325 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/7.3c (2002)
35. Utah Code Ann. § 62A-4a-404 (2002)
36. Utah Code Ann. § 62A-4a-409 (2002)
37. Witkins, M.D. (1990). Solving the problems of prenatal substance abuse: An analysis of punitive and rehabilitative approaches. Emory Law Journal, 39, 1401-1442.
38. Woliver, L.R. (1996). Policies to assist pregnant women and children should include a complete assessment of the realities of women’s lives. Politics and the Life Sciences, 15, 75-77.
39. Zivi, K.D. (2000). Who is the guilty party? Rights, motherhood, and the problem of prenatal drug exposure. Law & Society Review, 34(1), 237-258.