Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Do Pregnant Women Have Fewer Rights?

Posted by Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, Blog of Rights at 1:15 PM on October 30, 2009.


A slew of recent cases reveal a persistent paternalistic treatment of pregnant women by overzealous prosecutors and judges.
pregnantprisoner

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

In March, a Florida judge forced a pregnant woman to stay on bed rest and undergo all medical treatments deemed necessary to save her fetus, virtually imprisoning her at a hospital. In June, a federal judge in Maine sentenced a pregnant woman living with HIV to spend the duration of her pregnancy in jail solely because she was HIV-positive and pregnant (her sentence was later vacated). And just last week, the Texas Criminal Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in a case where local probation officers admitted they threw a probationer who failed a drug test into jail because she was pregnant; if she had not been pregnant they would have taken less drastic measures.

In a blog post on Double X, Beth Schwartzapfel does a great job of discussing this unlawful and discriminatory treatment of pregnant women. She writes:

One reason these cases keep coming up, despite their clear illegality, is simple paternalism -- overzealous prosecutors and judges think they know what’s best for a healthy pregnancy, as if that’s separate from what’s good for the pregnant woman. This is particularly troubling when judges assume that the woman must be confined or coerced in order to take good care of her child. . . . And the effect of prosecuting pregnant women who use drugs may be to deter other women with addictions from going to doctors’ offices and social service agencies -- precisely the places they need to be. If going to the emergency room might get you arrested, would you go?

 

The bottom line is that pregnant women enjoy the same civil liberties -- including the right to make decisions about their own health care, to equal treatment under the law, and to conduct their lives according to what they believe is best for themselves and their families -- guaranteed to us all.

Digg!

Tagged as: sexism, criminal justice system, prengnancy, pregnant women


Hard-liners Peddle Zombie Lies About Immigrants and Crime
A new report flies in the face of 100 years of data showing immigrants are less likely to commit serious crimes than the native-born.
Post by Walter Ewing. November 22, 2009.
Tiny Michigan Town Tells Liz Cheney to Take her Fearmongering Elsewhere
Someplace where they're all wusses.
Post by BarbinMD. November 21, 2009.
Utah Lawmaker: I Don't Mind "the Gays," but "I Don’t Want ‘Em Stuffing it Down My Throat all the Time"
"Certainly not in my kid's face."
Post by Zaid Jilani. November 20, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Tools: [Post a new comment] [Login] [Signup] View:
Yes, it's discriminatory, and in at least one case downright crazy.
Posted by: g on Oct 30, 2009 6:41 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is a problem when a pregnant woman who does not have an abortion engages in behavior that put the fetus at risk for severe impairments (e.g. fetal alcohol syndrome which can cause severe mental retardation). I do not like the idea of the child's life being ruined because mommy couldn't keep off the booze. This being said, some of these judges are downright crazy (how does throw a HIV positive woman in jail benefit her or her fetus?). And where do we draw the line? Shall we throw a woman in jail because she won't give up forms of exercise that could conceivably harm the fetus? Lock her up because secondhand smoke at her workplace could harm her fetus? How about making contraception and abortion accessible so that no woman is forced to carry an unwanted fetus? How about offering drug addicts who are pregnant rehab instead of jail?
This being said, sometimes it's tough to stay inactive with some incredibly irresponsible mothers. Then again irresponsibility does not stop at birth (I am thinking of those mothers who dress their 4 years old girls as pedophile bait), and we cannot draw a line without seriously harming women freedom. The assumption that a woman who is pregnant gives up her right to self-determination is an extremely dangerous one (like the assumption that a woman who marries has already given consent to sex, so there can't be marital rape).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

American citizenship is determined at conception??
Posted by: Purple Girl on Oct 31, 2009 5:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Are the Repugs ready to redefine Citizenship and who is protected by our laws, as those conceieved within our borders?
What they are bascially saying is that irregardless of a Birth certificate any Fetus has more rights than a person with an American Birth certificate.
If a fetus' right to Life exceeds the American Womans right to Life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then the Fetus becomes the citizens which is protected by the Constitution- thus according to them every child ever conceived within our country has the right to citizenship.
Instead of illegally crossing the border for jobs- they'll be crossing the border to get preganant, not only because their child willbe protected by our laws and have the potential to prosper but they too as well. either they will have to be allowed to bring our citizens back and provide the care necessary- or we will have a huge influx of foreign born orphans.
What the Rightwingers are trying to define is not just when 'life begins' but also who is afforded American citizenship Rights.Oh what a slippery slope that is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» No Posted by: BlueTigress
Blame the anti-abortionists
Posted by: BlueTigress on Oct 31, 2009 6:20 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Their cry of "Babies! It's for the babies!" has infected every idiot in the country.

Some of whom sit on the bench.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

FEWER RIGHTS THAN WHOM?
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Oct 31, 2009 2:33 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The question is misleading. She does not have fewer rights than the unborn child. And she has a whole different set of rights that the guy down the street. I think the real question is not about rights, it's about treating a pregnant women who has complications. That's not for a judge or the law to decide and certainly not some jail keeper. This would be the domain of her physician. Oh, and she gets to weigh in also. ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's all about the pro-life movement.
Posted by: warrior woman on Nov 1, 2009 5:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is all about the pro-life movement. Plain and simple. No different than them trying to change the definition of when life begins. Women are chattel and it makes me sick that these creeps can do these things to women.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

these are just the cases that make the headlines...
Posted by: undrgrndgirl on Nov 1, 2009 3:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
essentially ALL pregnant women are drug tested around 32 weeks...many babies are drug tested at, or shortly after, birth...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]