You are viewing the NationofChange archives. For the latest news and actions, visit the new www.NationofChange.org.
Tuesday, October 21, 2014 / PROGRESSIVE JOURNALISM FOR POSITIVE ACTION
Get Email Updates | Log In | Register

Criminalizing Pregnancy: As Roe Turns 40, New Study Reveals Forced Interventions on Pregnant Women

Amy Goodman
Democracy Now! / Video Report
Published: Saturday 19 January 2013
National Advocates for Pregnant Women found 413 cases when pregnant women were deprived of their physical liberty between 1973, when Roe v. Wade was decided, and 2005.

A new study shows hundreds of women in the United States have been arrested, forced to undergo unwanted medical procedures, and locked up in jails or psychiatric institutions because they were pregnant. National Advocates for Pregnant Women found 413 cases when pregnant women were deprived of their physical liberty between 1973, when Roe v. Wade was decided, and 2005. At least 250 more interventions have taken place since then. In one case, a court ordered a critically ill woman in Washington, D.C., to undergo a C-section against her will. Neither she nor the baby survived. In another case, a judge in Ohio kept a woman imprisoned to prevent her from having an abortion. We're joined by Lynn Paltrow, founder and executive director of the National Advocates for Pregnant Women. "We've had cases where lawyers have been appointed for a fetus before the woman herself, who's been locked up, ever gets a lawyer," Paltrow says. "[We've had] cases where they've ordered a procedure over women's religious objections, and one court said, pregnant women of course have a right to religious freedom -- unless it interferes with what we believe is best for the fetus or embryo." The new study comes on the eve of the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision on the right to abortion -- a right that has been under siege ever since.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Next week marks marks the 40th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade, which guaranteed the right to abortion, a right that has since faced major restrictions. New research shows hundreds of women in the United States have been arrested, forced to undergo unwanted medical procedures, and locked up in jails or psychiatric institutions, because they were pregnant.

AMY GOODMAN: In one case, a court ordered a critically ill woman in Washington, D.C., to undergo a C-section against her will. Neither she nor the baby survived. In another case, a judge in Ohio kept a woman in prison to prevent her from having an abortion. Research has attributed this criminalization of pregnancy to a range of anti-choice laws at the state level encouraging officials to treat a woman’s pregnancy as legally separate.

Well, for more, we’re joined by Lynn Paltrow, founder and executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women, co-author of the report, "Arrest of and Forced Interventions on Pregnant Women in the United States."

Welcome to Democracy Now!, Lynn. Talk about what you found.

LYNN PALTROW: Well, we knew that these cases existed. We’ve had the opportunity to talk about them. But they’re often seen as sort of rare and isolated. And, in fact, when we brought up these cases in response to proposed personhood measures that would authorize the states to treat fertilized eggs, embryos and fetuses as if they’re entirely separate from the pregnant woman; when we said, "Look, this is going to be used to arrest women who have had miscarriages and still-births. This is going to be used to surveil pregnant women. It’s going to do much more than just, as they claim, end the injustice of abortion," and they said, "That’s just scare tactics" — so we said, "OK, let’s look at what’s going on."

And what we found when we sought to actually document cases is we found 413 cases between 1973 and 2005, after Roe was decided. We picked that period so we know the outcome of the cases. We know, from evidence we got, that there were many more of those cases, but we weren’t—we know because sometimes we were advising women who were, in South Dakota, taken into custody on suspicion of pregnancy, to protect the unborn child from her drinking, for example. What we found were their arrests, incarcerations, as you said, in prisons and jails, forced medical interventions. And some of these cases, we hadn’t heard about, and even surprised us—a case where a woman was diagnosed with gestational diabetes, something that occurs during pregnancy. She didn’t comply with the orders for secondary follow-up testing, so they got a civil—they civilly committed her in the hospital, and they said she wasn’t—she was examined. She wasn’t insane. She wasn’t a danger to herself. But because they claimed that her mental health situation didn’t enable her to go for needed prenatal testing, they could keep her locked up in the hospital. And one of the things we also found is that when those kinds of things happen, it doesn’t mean that the woman or the baby is protected. She was locked in that hospital, and they never did the gestational testing.

But I think part of what we found, too, is, all of this, we sort of talk about it in a language that’s very familiar for the last 40 years: Roe v. Wade and the right to abortion, the criminalization of pregnancy. But what we really learned is that what’s at stake is the personhood of pregnant women, that when you look at what happened in these cases—women deprived of their physical liberty; the case you mentioned, Angela Carter, deprived of her right to life—they’re deprived of due process of law. Women are put in jail and have decisions about forced surgery made in the course of an afternoon. That’s basic due process rights. We’ve had cases where lawyers have been appointed for a fetus before the woman herself, who’s been locked up, ever gets a lawyer; cases where they’ve ordered a procedure over women’s religious objections. And one court said pregnant women of course have a right to religious freedom—unless it interferes with what we believe is best for the fetus or embryo.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Even here in a liberal bastion like New York City, a recent report that more than a dozen city hospitals were routinely testing pregnant women for drugs without informing them about it.

LYNN PALTROW: Absolutely. And what we see, both in the criminal and civil context, is a disproportionate focus for punitive measures on women of color, particularly African-American women. We found that this disproportionality included the greater likelihood of felony charges, a greater likelihood of the doctor turning in an African-American woman. At the same time, we found these cases all over the country and against women of all races. So what we’re—what we’re seeing, and I’ll just tell you about a—

AMY GOODMAN: We have 10 seconds.

LYNN PALTROW: That we are really talking about not just abortion rights, we are talking not only about reproductive rights, but whether or not, in the guise of trying to end just abortion, we are going to remove pregnant women from the community of constitutional persons.

AMY GOODMAN: Lynn Paltrow, we’re going to link to your report at democracynow.org, founder and executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women.



Author pic
ABOUT Amy Goodman

Amy Goodman is the host of "Democracy Now!," a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on more than 900 stations in North America. She is the author of "Breaking the Sound Barrier," recently released in paperback and now a New York Times best-seller.

What is the difference

What is the difference between killing or aborting a fetus in the womb or waiting later until they are older to kill or abort lives on the battle fields, drugs and domestic street violence ?? There are many ways to abort the lives of the young and innocent.. The moral of the story is this: Thou shall not kill...
Peace and Love or Peace and War.. I say into thee, make Love not War !!!
At any rate, Abortion is the lesser of the two difficult problem.

The difference is that until

The difference is that until a fetus is able to be sustained on it's own outside of the female body it is not a independent being and therefore it is at the discretion of the individual woman as tho whether it continue there or not. Killing living, independent people through violence in the street, in the political landscape or in the battlefield is very different. The locus of control as then expanded beyond the individual person that is serving host to the yet not independent life form to the other, whether it is another individual or a country or a political party. Forcing women to serve host to an unwanted pregnancy is wrong, and killing people on the battlefield or because they can't make a living wage is wrong too.

Informed choice has always

Informed choice has always mattered enormously, as ancient Greek tragedy shows. Punitive coercion, linked with glaring sexism, is obviously wrong: deeply unjust. But this doesn't make abortion right.
Discussions in 'liberal' or 'progressive' contexts about a woman's 'right' to have an abortion don't normally touch on the bedrock issue of the beginning of life, and our human responsibility for that beginning. Yes: the topic of women as 'the second sex' is ancient. Also ancient is the idea that wilfully ending a life by pretending that we human beings have divine wisdom is a form of self-delusion.

· . "SENATOR JOE

· . "SENATOR JOE McCARTY"...HAVE you ever been a member of the communist party ???
Do not communist come here?? to overthrow our government by subversive methods - " doing everything they can to undermind our law - our constitutuion??"
>>> WOULD YOU CONSIDER THE DE-FUNDING OF WOMEN'S HEALTHCARE RIGHTS - ( ABORTION) GUARANTEED BY OUR CONSTITUTION. . . . TO BE SUBVERSIVE ????
DOES THEIR STATEMENTS ABOUT HOW A WOMAN'S BODY REJECTS RAPE - - TO OUTLAW ABORTION ----- TO BE SUBVERSIVE ( BESIDES BEING LIES)
. . . "SENATOR JOE McCARTY'S" HOUSE OF "UN-AMERICAN" ACTIVITIES INVESTIGATION................
======================================================
. Here I go - - if you do not want an abortion no-one will force one on you - - - and in the same breathe if you want one it is your busniess. As a man I don't ever plan on having one ( ha ha ha ha ) but it is not my place to belittle women. THEY HAVE BRAINS - AND A GREAT DEAL OF THEM ARE SMARTER THAN I AM (hopefully) - - THEY THINK - THEREFORE THEY ARE- I AM NOT RONALD RAEGAN - TESTIFYING BEFORE CONGRESS SAYING " I DON'T REMEMBER" AND EVEN CONGRESS COULD NOT TELL HIM WHAT HE REMEMBERED OR DID NOT REMEMBER.....
. . I DIS-LOCATED MY SHOULDER - - YOU CAN NOT TELL ME HOW MUCH PAIN THERE WAS........NOR CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT I SEE OR WHAT I SAW ......THE UNITED STATES CLAIMS TO BE A FREE COUNTRY - SO YOU CAN NOT TELL ME WHAT TO THINK OR SAY ( WITHIN REASONABLE GUIDELINES OF OUR LAWS )
. . ABORTION IS A GUARANTEED RIGHT OF A WOMAN'S HEALTHCARE " BY OUR CONSTITTION" . . IT IS MADE LAW . . IT IS CASE CLOSED AND ALL THESE CHEAP DE-FUNDING ATTACKS BY REPUBLICANS LESSEN THE STATURE OF OUR COUNTRY - BECASUE THEY CAN NOT ATTACK IT FACE ON THE CHOOSE THE SLIMY BACK DOOR OR PROVING WHAT THEY STAND FOR....AND THEIR DIS-RESPECT FOR OUR COUNTRY.... OUR LAWS .....AND OUR CITIZENS

I'm way too old to get

I'm way too old to get pregnant, but it's disturbing when other people (often people who will never be pregnant) tell others what they can do. Abortions are not going to stop? How do I know? Because in ever single case, there's a man involved, usually a man who does not want to be a father at that time. Why does no one talk about this? Abortion is not a women's issue; it's a man-woman issue.

If men were willing to step up to their responsibilities after they impregnate a woman, the number of abortions would drop dramatically. We are designed to be sexual after a certain age. It's not immoral. But the one who pays the price is always the woman.

My message to the anti-abortion people (no one is pro-death!): Provide room and board to a pregnant woman so she has a choice about abortion. Abortions are not going to stop. They will simply go underground.

The law is clear - women DO

The law is clear - women DO have the right to an abortion.
The states have no more right to tell a woman she cannot have an abortion than it has to tell a woman she MUST HAVE AN ABORTION!
It is time to prosecute those within the states restricting abortions, to the full extent of the law. What can be done about the prejudice against the clinics that do sooo much more than abortions (3% or less) and provide a much needed service to the lower income communities. The states surely will not provide any of these services to WOMEN.

Comment with your Facebook account



Comment with your Disqus account

Top Stories

comments powered by Disqus

NationofChange works to educate, inform, and fight power with people, corruption with community.

If you would like to stay up to date with the best in independent, filter-free journalism, updates on upcoming events to attend, and more, enter your email below:

7 Compelling Reasons Why You Should Support NationofChange

Our readers often tell us why they’ve decided to step up and become supporters. Here are some of the top reasons people are giving.

1. You’re keeping independent journalism alive
The corporate owned media has proven that it can’t be trusted. In a media landscape wrought with spin and corruption, NationofChange stands in very scarce company.

2. You’re sticking it to the rich, powerful, and corrupt
When you have money in this country you can get away with damn near anything, and they do. NationofChange isn’t afraid to expose these criminals no matter how powerful they are.

3. Your donation is 100% tax-deductible
NationofChange is a 501(c)3 charity. People tend to assume that many other organizations are (most nonprofits are NOT) but it’s that 501(c)3 status is a bit more rare than you think.

Read the rest...