SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
pregnancy
Thanks to Trump, Criminal Charges Related to Pregnancy Hit All-Time High
"The Dobbs decision emboldened prosecutors to develop ever more aggressive strategies to prosecute pregnancy, leading to the most pregnancy-related criminal cases on record."
Sep 24, 2024
Reproductive justice experts have long warned that the erosion of abortion rights in the U.S. would harm people in a wide range of ways, and a report released Tuesday quantifies some of that harm—namely, the criminalization of pregnancy.
In the report, Pregnancy as a Crime: A Preliminary Report on the First Year After Dobbs, the rights group Pregnancy Justice found that from June 24, 2022—the day the Supreme Court handed down the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade—to June 23, 2022, the number of people who faced criminal charges related to their pregnancies rose to its highest level in U.S. history.
At least 210 people were charged with crimes related to pregnancy in the first year after Roe was overturned, with prosecutors accusing them of child endangerment, substance abuse, attempting to end a pregnancy—or even researching abortion—and abuse of a corpse, among other charges. Right-wing lawmakers in 22 states have now banned or severely restricted access to abortion.
According to Pregnancy Justice president Lourdes A. Rivera, "the Dobbs decision emboldened prosecutors to develop ever more aggressive strategies to prosecute pregnancy, leading to the most pregnancy-related criminal cases on record" in a single year.
The rise in pregnancy criminalization "is directly tied to the radical legal doctrine of 'fetal personhood,' which grants full legal rights to an embryo or fetus, turning them into victims of crimes perpetrated by pregnant women," added Rivera.
Roughly half of the cases detailed in Pregnancy as a Crime—104 of them—were reported in Alabama, one of several Republican-controlled states that have so-called "fetal personhood laws."
"Without fetal personhood, pregnancy criminalization could not exist," reads the report.
Prosecutors in Oklahoma filed 68 of the cases, and South Carolina had the third-most charges with 10 pregnant people criminalized.
All three states with the highest numbers of cases have near-total abortion bans and some of the worst maternal and infant mortality rates in the U.S., according to Pregnancy Justice.
"To turn the tide on criminalization, we need to separate healthcare from the criminal legal system and to change policy and practices to ensure that pregnant people can safely access the healthcare they need, without fear of criminalization."
In nearly all of the cases brought against pregnant people, actual harm to a fetus or baby did not have to be proven—prosecutors focused only on the perceived risk that the defendants allegedly exposed their pregnancies to.
For example, all 68 defendants in Oklahoma were charged with child neglect, delinquency, or abuse for testing positive for a substance while pregnant or giving birth.
"Defendants can be found guilty even if the pregnancy results in a healthy child and even when the science does not support the
assumption that a positive drug test proves the fetus was harmed," reads the report.
Such "no harm" prosecutions can result in severe punishment for defendants, said Pregnancy Justice; the Oklahoma residents who were charged face sentences up to life in prison if found guilty, and 93 Alabama defendants who were charged with chemical endangerment of a minor could face up to 10 years in prison.
"These findings strongly suggest that, rather than focusing on fetal harm, these prosecutions seek to control and punish pregnant people," said Pregnancy Justice.
Substance abuse charges—for both legal and illegal substances—were involved in a majority of cases studied by the group, while five cases included allegations regarding abortion care, including an attempt to end a pregnancy or to research the possibility of an abortion.
Twenty-two people were criminalized for experiencing a pregnancy loss, said Pregnancy Justice.
Charging documents included 15 allegations of "lack of prenatal care" and 10 cases in which the defendant failed "to seek help during or after birth." Three people were accused of breastfeeding and placing their infant at risk of drug exposure.
"The allegations in these cases are particularly notable for the way that they criminalize precarious pregnancy and birth and meet healthcare needs with punishment rather than care," reads the report. "It is also noteworthy that several women who appear to have faced serious health conditions, devastating pregnancy losses, and enormous trauma, were met not with offers of care but threatened with punishment for finding themselves in allegedly dangerous situations or allegedly not seeking help quickly enough in traumatic moments. Striking, too, in the midst of a wide-ranging crisis in maternal healthcare, is the condemnation of pregnant people for not accessing prenatal care."
In one case, police charged a woman with abusing her "unborn child" just after they administered Narcan to save her from a drug overdose.
Criminalization of pregnancy, said Pregnancy Justice, "only worsens" the crisis of opioid-related deaths among pregnant people.
Rivera said that "to turn the tide on criminalization, we need to separate healthcare from the criminal legal system and to change policy and practices to ensure that pregnant people can safely access the healthcare they need, without fear of criminalization."
The report was released a day after KFF Health Newsreported on the story of Amari Marsh, a South Carolina resident who was charged in May of 2023 with "murder/homicide by child abuse," two months after she went into preterm labor and gave birth in her bathroom. Marsh spent 22 days in prison—and faced a potential sentence of 20 years to life—but her charges were ultimately dismissed by a grand jury.
Marsh's case, and other instances of pregnancy criminalization, represent Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump's "plan for America," said Rep. Katherine Clark (D-Mass.) on Tuesday. Trump has boasted about his hand in ensuring Roe v. Wade was overturned and spread misinformation about abortion rights, including the demonstrably false claim that Democrats support "an execution of a baby after birth."
The Dobbs decision, made possible by Trump's appointment of right-wing Supreme Court justices, paved the way for "increased suspicion and surveillance of pregnant people," said Wendy Bach, principal investigator of the report and a professor at the University of Tennessee College of Law. "With this report, we hope to see both more attention on pregnancy-related prosecutions and more advocacy to reverse course on the criminalization of pregnant people."
Correction: This article has been adjusted from its original to more accurately reflect context surrounding a comment from Pregnancy Justice president Lourdes A. Rivera.
Keep ReadingShow Less
EPA Takes 'Historic' Step to Halt Dangerous Herbicide Use
"DCPA is so dangerous that it needs to be removed from the market immediately," said an EPA official, but advocates said the move was "long overdue."
Aug 06, 2024
Taking a rare step to "prevent imminent hazard," the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday issued an emergency order suspending all uses of an herbicide that has been linked to irreversible health risks for unborn babies.
The EPA issued the order after years of pushing AMVAC Chemical Corporation, the sole manufacturer of dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate, to submit data about the risks posed by the chemical, which is also known as Dacthal and DCPA.
The agency estimated in 2023 that a fetus could be exposed to levels of DCPA four to 20 times greater than the safe limit, if a pregnant person handled products treated with the herbicide.
The chemical is used on crops including broccoli, onions, cabbage, and Brussels sprouts in the U.S., but has been banned since 2009 in the European Union.
Exposed fetuses can suffer effects including low birth weight, impaired brain development and motor skills, and decreased I.Q., according to the agency.
"DCPA is so dangerous that it needs to be removed from the market immediately," Michal Freedhoff, assistant administrator for the EPA's Office of Chemical Safety, said in statement. "In this case, pregnant women who may never even know they were exposed could give birth to babies that experience irreversible lifelong health problems."
"Countless people have been exposed to DCPA while the EPA abdicated its responsibility. The agency should have taken action decades ago, when it first identified the human health risks posed by this toxic crop chemical."
The Environmental Working Group (EWG) called the suspension of DCPA "welcome news," but said it was "long overdue." The group's research found that even though the EPA has collected evidence of DCPA's health risks, up to 200,000 pounds of the herbicide were sprayed on crops in California in some recent years.
"For years, EWG and other public health advocates have warned about the serious risks the weedkiller poses to farmworkers, pregnant people, and other vulnerable populations," said senior toxicologist Alexis Temkin. "Countless people have been exposed to DCPA while the EPA abdicated its responsibility. The agency should have taken action decades ago, when it first identified the human health risks posed by this toxic crop chemical."
Mily Treviño Sauceda, executive director of Alianza Nacional de Campesinas, also known as the National Farmworkers Women's Alliance, said the emergency order was "a great first step that we hope will be in a series of others that are based on listening to farmworkers, protecting our reproductive health, and safeguarding our families."
"Alianza is pleased to see the EPA make this historic decision," she said. "As an organization led by farmworker women, we know intimately the harm that pesticides, including dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate... can inflict on our bodies and communities."
William Jordan, a volunteer with the Environmental Protection Network and a former deputy director for programs in the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs, noted that the agency made the emergency order and bypassed the lengthy process of canceling DCPA's approval due to the harm the chemical causes—the first time in 40 years that the EPA has taken the step.
"The Environmental Protection Network endorses the strong regulatory action taken by EPA to address the extraordinary risks to unborn children posed by the use of pesticides containing DCPA," said Jordan. "EPA's order immediately suspending all sales, distribution, and use of DCPA products is the only way to avoid the harm to children that would result from continued use of this dangerous pesticide."
Keep ReadingShow Less
SCOTUS Ruling on Emergency Abortion Care Called 'Dangerous Preview for What Could Come'
"If Trump is elected again, he will appoint even more justices who could uphold future abortion bans and endanger our fundamental freedoms for decades."
Jun 27, 2024
Reproductive rights advocates across the United States on Thursday were "hardly celebrating" the Supreme Court's one-sentence decision in a case regarding whether emergency departments can provide abortion care to people who have urgent pregnancy complications, and the court left open the possibility that such care could ultimately be banned.
In Moyle v. United States and Idaho v. United States, Idaho officials asked the court to intervene in an earlier decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which temporarily blocked the state's near-total abortion ban after the Biden administration argued it violated the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA).
EMTALA requires hospital emergency departments that accept Medicare to provide "necessary stabilizing treatment" to all patients, and the Biden administration argued abortion care is included in that requirement and that federal law should override Idaho's abortion ban.
But a day after a draft decision was mistakenly posted on the Supreme Court's website, the release of the ruling confirmed that the court had dismissed the case without ruling on its merits and was sending it back to the lower courts.
The decision temporarily restores Idaho medical providers' ability to provide emergency abortions, but as the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) said, "it still leaves millions of people in states with abortion bans vulnerable."
"Hospitals in the 14 states that completely ban abortion, as well as many others with bans and restrictions, have shown they are afraid to provide emergency abortions due to the risk of severe criminal penalties under their states' vague and confusing abortion bans," said the organization. "For patients needing abortion care in those states, they will continue to largely rely on their state's medical exceptions, which often do not work in practice."
Nancy Northrup, CRR's president and CEO, explained that the court had "kicked the can down the road on whether states with abortion bans can override the federal law requirement that hospitals must provide abortion care to patients in the throes of life-threatening pregnancy complications."
"The court's refusal to clearly affirm the rights of all pregnant people to emergency abortion care, and put an unequivocal end to extremist attacks by anti-abortion politicians on this essential healthcare, is a dangerous preview for what could come."
"The Supreme Court created this healthcare crisis by overturning Roe v. Wade and should have decided the issue," said Northrup. "Women with dire pregnancy complications and the hospital staff who care for them need clarity right now."
Two of the court's liberal members, Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan, agreed with Northrup and other advocates in a dissenting opinion that the panel should have ruled on the merits of the case.
Kagan wrote that EMTALA "unambiguously requires" hospitals to provide emergency treatment including abortion care, while Jackson said Idaho's ban on nearly all abortions created a "monthslong catastrophe" when it was in effect.
"Idaho physicians were forced to step back and watch as their patients suffered, or arrange for their patients to be airlifted out," Jackson wrote of the state's law, which bans abortions except in cases of rape, incest, certain nonviable pregnancies, and those in which a pregnant patient's life is at risk. "There is simply no good reason not to resolve this conflict now."
"While this court dawdles and the country waits, pregnant people experiencing emergency medical conditions remain in a precarious position, as their doctors are kept in the dark about what the law requires," Jackson continued.
Right-wing Justice Samuel Alito also objected to the court's refusal to rule on the case's merits, but said Idaho's ban should apply to abortion care, arguing that EMTALA requires hospitals "to treat, not abort, an 'unborn child.'"
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said Alito's dissent, joined by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, "will embolden those who are pursuing a strategy to give legal rights to embryos and fetuses that will override the rights of the pregnant person and ban not only abortion, but other forms of reproductive healthcare like fertility treatment and birth control as well."
With the official release of the ruling, said Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, deputy director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, "it is now clear that the Supreme Court had the opportunity to hold once and for all that every pregnant person in this country is entitled to the emergency care they need to protect their health and lives, and it failed to do so."
"The court's refusal to clearly affirm the rights of all pregnant people to emergency abortion care, and put an unequivocal end to extremist attacks by anti-abortion politicians on this essential healthcare, is a dangerous preview for what could come," said Kolbi-Molinas. "This fight is far from over–anti-abortion politicians are trying to ban abortion in all 50 states, including in emergencies. These extremist politicians went all the way to the Supreme Court for the right to put doctors in jail for providing life- and health-saving emergency abortion care, and they will do it again, if we let them."
Since Roe v. Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court's right-wing majority in June 2022, a number of cases from states with abortion bans and restrictions have garnered national attention, with women speaking out about being denied abortion care when they were experiencing severe, sometimes life-threatening, complications or had learned their fetuses had fatal abnormalities.
Despite those cases, Indivisible co-executive director Leah Greenberg said Thursday's ruling leaves an "open question" on whether or not emergency rooms can "just let women die instead of treating them."
Mini Timmaraju, president and CEO of Reproductive Freedom for All, said the ruling should "serve as a reminder of what's at stake this November."
"While the Biden administration is fighting tooth and nail to ensure people can get the emergency abortion care they need, anti-abortion extremists will continue to do whatever they can to stop them," said Timmaraju. "We must secure reproductive freedom majorities in Congress and send President Biden back to the White House to restore the federal right to abortion and expand access for all."
Judicial reform group Stand Up America pointed to the Supreme Court Voter campaign it launched Monday, aiming to mobilize voters "on the impact the next president will have on the future of the U.S. Supreme Court."
"The Roberts court's decision to take up Idaho v. United States endangered the lives of pregnant Americans and did irreparable harm," said Stand Up America executive director Christina Harvey. "By staying the lower court's decision, the Supreme Court allowed Idaho's extreme abortion ban to take effect while it considered the case. In the meantime, for months, the lives of women in Idaho were callously put at risk, with multiple patients having to be medevacked out of the state to receive care.
"By overturning Roe, the MAGA majority on the court opened the door to extreme abortion bans like the one in Idaho," she added. "If Trump is elected again, he will appoint even more justices who could uphold future abortion bans and endanger our fundamental freedoms for decades."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular