Well then I'm a racist and I wear the badge with pride:

A Boston, Massachusetts, hospital announced Tuesday that after finding Black mothers were more likely to be reported for child abuse and neglect if a toxicology report came back positive, it would be taking steps to reevaluate the process in order to avoid perpetuating "structural racism." 

"Black pregnant people are more likely to be drug tested and to be reported to child welfare systems than white pregnant people," said Mass General Brigham, a nonprofit health care system. 

Pregnant people eh?  Can you describe who might be pregnant accurately to begin with?  For instance there has never been a pregnant man nor will there ever be, so the correct description is pregnant women, not people.

Oh, and then it gets really rich:

"Substance use disorder (SUD) is a condition with significant racial and ethnic inequities, especially in the context of pregnancy, when more punitive approaches to substance use disproportionately affect Black individuals," the announcement said.

You mean because it is more-likely that black people might be using drugs?

The drugs are either there or they are not.  If they are there then they are, and the skin color of the woman (and/or child) is irrelevant.

The hospital said its new policy is in line with medical recommendations from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), which opposes drug testing of individuals or infants without consent and discourages "the separation of parents from their children solely based on substance use disorder, either suspected or confirmed."

Oh really?

So a woman who deliberately exposes her pre-born infant to harmful and addictive drugs should be considered "fit" and "responsible" to be a parent with custody of said kid?  You're serious about this?

I do understand and support that a woman who is pregnant and is using prescription treatment for her addiction, but is not violating that treatment protocol, inevitably will expose the infant to the treatment drug.  Provided that she does not also consume the drug(s) in question for which she sought treatment I can support leaving her and the child alone because she's recognized the problem, affirmatively taken steps to address it and the exposure in that case is inevitable and, as near as we can tell, it is not particularly dangerous.

But none of that is true if the actual drug is found in the infant or, for that matter, in the mother during the pregnancy or at the time of birth.  In that case she has willingly and intentionally exposed her child to narcotics on a direct basis and is per-se unfit to have custody of that kid.

For a hospital system to declare otherwise is the very definition of malpractice, fraud, and in addition it violates mandatory reporting statutes which should expose said hospital personnel personally to felony criminal child endangerment charges and, if said kid is seriously harmed or dies every single one of them should be indicted and tried as accessories before the fact to murder and executed for said crime.

I've long held the position that if you are female, of child-bearing age and caught with narcotics in your system your options should be (1) prison or (2) permanent sterilization.  Why?  Because while you have the right to abuse your body that does not extend to others who cannot give consent, and a girl is born with every egg she will ever have, so once those eggs are "polluted" there's nothing you can do about it.

ENOUGH of this woke bullshit.

If someone who works at such a place is run over by someone's SUV -- twice just to make sure they didn't miss -- I will cheer and laugh at their family members when the funeral is held.  I've had it with so-called "medical professionals" suborning intentional harm such as occurred with Remdesivir and now they want to do it to infants who have no capacity to consent whatsoever.

FUCK YOU Mass General and every single rat bastard who is employed there along with their entire genetic line.