Hospitals Are Giving Pregnant Women Drugs, Then Reporting Them to CPS When They Test Positive
One 2022 study found that 91 percent of women given fentanyl in their epidurals later tested positive for the drug.

According to a new investigation from The Marshall Project, hospitals are giving women drugs during labor and then reporting them to child welfare services when they later test positive for those same drugs. These cases are one of the more maddening side effects of an out-of-control drug war combined with strict mandatory reporting laws.
"Hospital drug testing of pregnant women, which began in the 1980s and spread rapidly during the opioid epidemic, was intended in part to help identify babies who might experience withdrawal symptoms and need extra medical care," writes The Marshall Project reporter Shoshana Walter. "Federal law requires hospitals to alert child welfare agencies anytime such babies are born."
The problem is that these pee-in-a-cup tests are frequently inaccurate and vulnerable to false positives. One 2022 study cited by Walter found that 91 percent of women given fentanyl in their epidurals tested positive for it later. Making matters worse, in several cases reviewed by Walter, a simple lack of due diligence played a major role. In these cases, "doctors and social workers did not review patient medications to find the cause of a positive test. In others, providers suspected a medication they prescribed could be the culprit, but reported patients to authorities anyway," Walter writes.
One woman Walter spoke to was reported to child welfare services soon after she gave birth to a stillborn daughter. She had tested positive for benzodiazepine—the same drug she was given before her emergency C-section. Another woman was given morphine to ease her pain during childbirth and was reported to child welfare services after her baby's first bowel movement tested positive for opiates—even though the morphine was noted in her medical records and a drug test she took shortly before she went into labor showed no drugs in her system. After another woman tested positive for meth, her four children—including a newborn—were taken from her and kept in first care for 11 days. They weren't returned until another drug test showed that the positive test was triggered by a heartburn medication she had been given at the hospital.
"Hospitals often lack policies requiring providers to review a patient's records to see what medications they received before reporting them to authorities. Mandatory reporting laws protect doctors from liability for reports made 'in good faith'" even if they turn out to be wrong," Walter writes. "Some hospitals require social workers to automatically file a report for any positive test,"
"In at least 27 states, hospitals are required by law to alert child welfare agencies about a positive test or a potential exposure to the baby," Walter adds. "But not a single state requires hospitals to confirm test results before reporting them."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Another place where DOGE can save money.
Why so many drug tests without any medical need?
Why buy tests known to be defective?
Because it makes the politicians look like they're doing something. If a man was drowning and a politician threw them an anchor "the people" would praise the politician, at least he "did something" while everyone else did nothing because they can't swim either. And their efforts increase the cost of having a baby, multiple drug tests are not just paid for with manna from heaven, someone has to pay for it and the politicians know it's not them who will be blamed, it's the hospital and insurance companies they forced to have to pay for unnecessary tests who get blamed for the higher cost.
Why are they doing drug tests at all for people (customers) who didn't ask for them?
According to a quick google search, only four states (North Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa and Kentucky) mandate drug testing for pregnant women. For the rest it's technically voluntary, but it's buried in pages and pages of consent forms that nobody reads. As for why, that's obvious. To have an excuse to take children away from their parents. Same reason why cops shoot dogs. To maximize emotional harm.
[Actually not worth it]
As has been pointed out before, they aren't. These are predominantly women on public assistance or with other risk factors.
You'll also note that, as with other moral panics, suddenly doctors and nurses who spent untold years in med school and being thoroughly socialized in proper gender and race-neutral bedside manner while performing transgendered surgeries, are back to being police-state redneck patriarchal sexists again.
All the nurses, med techs, OB-GYNs involved in collecting these samples, picking up the phone, etc., etc.? Agentless automatons blindly trying to punish pregnant women. None of them are capable of calculating morphine doses and half-lives in their heads, evaluate their culpability, and *then* deciding to call child services. Nope, they're just stopgap automatons until IT can program DCFS's phone number directly into the chemical analyzer.
Or, if it's found out that we don't report these cases, we could lose our licenses and even possibly be criminally prosecuted ourselves - not to mention if something happened to the infant as a result of their mother's drug use, and we didn't test them, you can bet we'll be getting sued. One of the lessons you learn early in medicine is the druggies are going to sue you if they harm themselves or others due to their drug use and you didn't do anything about it as a healthcare professional. I've seen it happen a lot. Druggies own actions causes them harm, but because you didn't curb their behavior or report it, you end up getting sued. And when it's an infant involved, guess who the jury sides with? I had a friend get sued because a meth head took a home herbal remedy to abort her fetus, the fetus died when it was delivered, and the druggie then turned around and sued everyone whose name was on the records as having treated her (my friend checked her in just before shift change and she delivered hours after she clocked out and she was still named in the case). And the druggie won. You see shit like that, you probably are not going to be overzealous in deciding who should and shouldn't be reported. You're going to cover your ass.
Also, a lot of times, the state regulators don't care if you didn't report it because of extenuating circumstances, more often than not, there going to write you up even if you can show that you were the one who likely gave them the drugs and that's why you didn't report them. To the regulators, this isn't an excuse for not following the regulations and it could end up with your license being suspended or at least placed on parole, which you have to report when you renew your license or try to transfer it to another state. Then they may deny you a new license because you have a disciplinary note on your license. Chances are this isn't the medical staff not doing their due diligence so much as the regulations are either ambiguous, and therefore it's safer to blindly follow them (because it takes just one overzealous regulator to ruin your career) or the regulations offers no wriggle room (because the people writing the regulations, even when they're medical personnel, tend not to actually practice medicine and only know theory).
I've seen an infant go through withdrawals after birth, it's life threatening (the mother had a prescription and was being treated for a chronic condition that caused extensive pain). It did require the infant to be admitted into the NICU to manage. So, as the story says, it can be used to anticipate problems postpartum but it's a pretty blunt tool all the same.
" . . . her four children—including a newborn—were taken from her and kept in first care for 11 days . . . ."
Foster? Foster Care makes sense (in the context of the sentence, not in her medical situation).
Mothers are secondary sources of childcare.
Government Almighty loves us more than we (or our mothers) do!!!!
Google for "hospital first care" shows it is a real thing.
So here we have yet ANOTHER case of Government Almighty (and shit's fully owned lapdog, health care) being abysmally incompetent. Yet SOME morons around here FULLY TRUST Government Almighty to run a system to inspect ALL of our “papers please” AND our buttholes, to decide who is, and who is not, an illegal sub-human!!!
Pregnant women...
They may have consulted a biologist.
The problem is that these pee-in-a-cup tests are frequently inaccurate and vulnerable to false positives. One 2022 study cited by Walter found that 91 percent of women given fentanyl in their epidurals tested positive for it later.
... and we've stumbled backwards, unable to find our own ass with two hands into "All science is junk science."/"Shut up and agree with what I mean." activist journalist libertarianism.
I take it the fundraising didn't go so well.
Gotta punish women for failing to abort those clumps.
If'n they have ONE single molecule of EVIL (prohibited by Government Almighty) drugs, in that them thar Sacred Fartilized Egg Smells, ass prohibited by Government Almighty, then Government Almighty will understandably declare that Government Almighty LOVES The Children FAR more than ANYONE can EVER understand or love them! Thus, of course, Our Ever-Loving, Eternal Government Almighty will decide for us ALL, TWAT is Love, and TWAT is Hate!
All Hail Government Almighty!!! (AND shit's paid-for-in-full lap-dog, the medical establishment.)
These cases are one of the more maddening side effects of an out-of-control drug war combined with strict mandatory reporting laws.
So...who do we murder?
Hang Mike Pence? Execute General Milley? Declare all Demon-Crap and Libertarian (not-for-Trump) votes to be fraudulent, thereby murdering democracy? Murder free trade? Murder free travels across Magic Lines in the Sacred Sands? Murder "free" speech that does SNOT favor "Team R"?
SOOOO many choices, so little time!!!
OK, I now want to know how 'mandatory reporting' is not compelled speech.
Shit depends on whose ox gets gored! And whose TRIBE'S ox gets gored!!! And whether or snot the Sacred Ox is bearing a Sacred Fartilized Egg Smell!!!
(Oxen or human Sacred Fartilized Egg Smells? Does shit matter?!?! Devout 397% of GNP for the next 27 years for fears, to FUCKING PARASITICAL LAWYERS, and THEN we shall be allowed to know!!!!)
FYTW. Basically, they threaten your license if you don't report. So, you can choose to not report, but you could lose your license, and go through the trouble of getting it reinstated (which generally entails you kissing the godfather's ring).
It is. So what? Learn to make distinctions.
It's pretty simple.
We've already established modern culture has:
1. Already eradicated most of prior generations' social taboo against 'snitching'.
2. Made most people fully ready to throw away most conceptions of freedom when 'children' are invoked.
Last thing any right-hand government bureaucrat wants is to interfere with the left-hand bureaucrats.
Basically, if there is a policy in medicine that you don't like, it's probably not the doctors or nurses who have implemented it but either a risk assessment specialist or a Dudley Do Right bureaucrat. You want to know why they're asking you about your sex life, mental health, domestic violence, suicide, or guns when you go in for a simple renewal of your BP meds, it's because they've been told by the people who have power over them they have to ask those questions. Fuck, even for the fact you have to go into the office annually to get your prescriptions renewed for drugs you've been on long term isn't the doctor or nurses choice (we'd rather not take up our time and yours doing a battery of largely meaningless tests to renew your Lisinopril).
And we sure as hell really don't want to have to ask you about your sex life, how many beers you drink in a week etc.
That’s why I basically answer NO to all those questions, because I don’t want to have to answer more questions, and 99.99% of them are completely irrelevant to what I’m being treated for.
And don't answer any questions about your mental health during a physical exam. They're irrelevant, and with massive data breeches involving medical records happening regularly, confidentiality cannot be assumed.
So what if some one tests positive for an opioid? It's no big deal. It's like testing people for eating food. Some people become obese and that can kill them, but we don't force people to stop eating food. The DEA would test for food and then jail people if we let the DEA classify food as a dangerous substance. These people are mindless fools who live to exercise ferkata control over other people.
This does actually happen if you eat a poppyseed bagel before a drug test-so if you have to take a test for work, they advise you not to eat poppyseed for a few days before. I doubt any of these moms were warned about that, or anything before their tests.
What would happen if they specifically declined drug testing?
Bureaucrats follow the rules completely mindlessly? I'm shocked. Shocked.
They selectively enforce them on “vulnerable” people who can’t fight back. You almost never hear of rich white moms s having their kids taken away.