The only "freedom" I can see possibly applying in this case is the right to privacy for pregnant women, as in Roe v. Wade. However, I think that a woman choosing to drink while pregnant is fundamentally different from a woman choosing to have an abortion. There are many valid reasons why a woman might choose not to have a child, but there's no good reason for a woman to choose to have a severely handicapped child. The woman isn't choosing to drink because she wants to affect the child, she's drinking because she wants to drink. I think it's pretty firmly established that the government can place restrictions on what substances people consume, even in cases where noone is being directly harmed. I don't know whether such a law actually exists, but I would think that if it were passed, it could stand up to a constitutional challenge.
Let's see...some states charge people for double murder if the victim was pregnant, so why not charge the woman for 'unborn' child abuse on the first kid? Make the penalty forced rehab with an insane probation term so that getting pregnant is fine as long as she isn't caught drinking again. Breaking that parole would send her to a 9 month min. rehab clinic focused upon teaching mothering skills and handling the stress of childcare. A hassle in state expenses? What's lost here is that the state already has to nanny an orphanage of mentally disabled children because the mothers are clearly unfit. Targeting the mothers addiction doesn't break persnal freedoms, imo.
