This bill (and its two companions), if enacted, would IMHO set an extremely dangerous precedent.
The legislation would amend the definition of child abuse to include "causing of a child to be exposed to or to have contact with" illicit production of a particular, Schedule II drug.
Not only is this inferential standard once removed from ACTUAL abuse, it is impossibly vague besides. What exactly would constitute "exposed to" or "contact with"?
It would be only the shortest of steps to expand this to include other illicit substances. Only a slightly larger one to include other illicit activities. I leave it to your imagination (or nightmares) what other circumstances might ultimately be classified as indirect child abuse.
I realize that "for the children" is the sacred mantra, before which even Due Process and other constitutional protections recoil. But it seems to me that the state should be required to PROVE child abuse, not some other crime/circumstance which can then be inferred ipso facto to constitute abuse -- without any proof of actual, causal harm to a child.