7 Declarations About ‘Crack Babies’ That Were Flat-Out Wrong

JD-Smith-Crack-Baby

They Had Small Heads, Bad Muscle Tone, Tremors

After studies such as one in Philadelphia in 1989 found that nearly one in six newborns at city hospitals had mothers who tested positive for cocaine, the stories began to explode in the media about the so-called “crack babies.” They had small heads and were easily agitated and prone to tremors and bad muscle tone, according to reports, many of which were anecdotal. Deborah A. Frank, a pediatrics professor at Boston University who has tracked a group of children who were exposed in the womb, said the “crack baby” label led to erroneous stereotyping. “You can’t walk into a classroom and tell this kid was exposed and this kid was not,” Frank said.

 
black children in school

They Would Not Be Able to Form Meaningful Relationships

Health workers claimed the babies seemed aloof and avoided eye contact. Some social workers predicted a lost generation — kids with a host of learning and emotional deficits who would overwhelm school systems and not be able to hold a job or form meaningful relationships. The “crack baby” image became symbolic of bad mothering, and some cocaine-using mothers had their babies taken from them or, in a few cases, were arrested. But Dr. Hallam Hurt’s study at Albert Einstein Medical Center found no significant differences between the cocaine-exposed children and the controls who hadn’t been exposed.

Democracy needs journalism it can trust.

This election season, the stakes are higher than usual — and so is the pressure on newsrooms to soften their coverage, stay quiet, or just disappear. Independent reporting, the kind that answers to readers instead of advertisers or political pressure, matters more in a moment like this, not less.

For over 14 years, Atlanta Black Star has stayed independent and reader-funded. We have no corporate owner and no shareholders telling us what to cover or how to cover it. That independence is also our biggest vulnerability: nothing protects it except readers choosing to fund it directly.

Newspaper ad revenue has fallen more than 80% since 2005, and local newsrooms are closing at a rate of roughly two a week nationwide. When outlets go under in a moment like this, it's rarely the independent, reader-funded ones that get to stick around.

We know a request for support isn't why you came here. But without readers choosing to fund this work directly, the depth of reporting we can do at home and abroad shrinks along with everyone else's. If you're not in a position to give, that doesn't change how much we value you as a reader.

If you are able to, a recurring contribution does more for us than a single one-time gift, because it lets us plan the next investigation instead of just the next invoice. It takes about 30 seconds, no long form, no account. Thank you for continuing to support independent journalism and freedom of the press.

Back to top