•  
  •  
 

Keywords

§ 26-15-3.2; Alabama; chemical endangerment; chemical endangerment of exposing a child to an environment in which controlled substances are produced or distributed; pregnancy; pregnancy criminalization; evidence; evidentiary rule; criminal law; Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization; Roe v. Wade; reproductive justice; controlled substances; prenatal care; health records; health law; State v. McKnight; drug test; Rule of Evidence 412; Rule of Evidence 609(b); public health

Abstract

For decades, pregnant women have increasingly faced criminalization for their actions and conduct during pregnancy, with Alabama emerging as a focal point due to its aggressive use of section 26-15-3.2: Chemical Endangerment of Exposing a Child to an Environment in Which Controlled Substances Are Produced or Distributed. Originally intended to protect children from the dangers of methamphetamine labs, this law has been reinterpreted to prosecute pregnant women who test positive for controlled substances. Central to these prosecutions are positive drug tests obtained from prenatal health records, causing many women to avoid prenatal care for fear of legal consequences.

This Note examines the evidentiary challenges of admitting such drug tests in court, focusing on their probative versus prejudicial value, and argues that the current application of this statute undermines public health goals. To address these concerns, the Note proposes the adoption of a new evidentiary rule in Alabama, modeled after Alabama Rule of Evidence 412, to mitigate the harmful policy effects of the statute’s broad use. This proposed rule seeks to strike a balance between protecting the rights of defendants and ensuring fair judicial outcomes, while also promoting broader access to prenatal healthcare.

Download

Share

COinS