A Chance to Fund Family Planning in NJ through an Override Vote

Women's Equality Day was used to announce NJ Democrats' intention to overturn Governor Christie's veto of $7.5 million in family funding for New Jersey Citizens.

The vote will take place in the Senate on September 20, 2010. If the override vote in the Senate passes, the Assembly will  vote on Sept. 30.

Two-thirds of the lawmakers in both houses are needed to override the veto.  For the Senate, will we need 27 votes and in the Assembly we will need 54.  When the bill originally passed the house on June 30, 30 out of 40 Senators voted in favor of the bill, enough to support a veto override.  Republican leadership however is stating that they will not vote to override the veto of a Governor from their own party.

Now is the time to put pressure on our legislature. We have until September 20, 2010 ensure that women in NJ maintain access to comprehensive reproductive health care.

http://www.ppaction.org/campaign/WHM_PPANJ_overridetheveto

Not sure why this bill is important? Check out my past blog post:

http://reproductivejusticenj.blogspot.com/2010/07/family-planning-bill-denies-nj-citizens.html

Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice Highlights Racism (and Sexism) of Glenn Beck Rally

This past week I was busy celebrating my 33rd birthday. (Thanks to all of you who commented on my blog!).

Yet, the world did not take a break from attempting to role back civil and women's rights.  We have all heard about the Glen Beck rally.  Have we heard the analysis of how this was particularly harmful of black women's reproductive rights?

Since I didn't have time to write something up, Check out this great blog article below.

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/08/30/glenn-beck-alveda-king-reproductive-rights

No More Dead Women on my Bookshelf

I have taken to reading mysteries this summer. I chose this genre because I wanted intrigue, suspense, plot twists and nail biting.

Instead, I have ended up with dead women, sexual assault, misogyny. It seems to me that violence against women is used in lieu of plot or character development.

Violence against women is committed in the real world, to real people daily... and our society virtually ignores this issue. In fact, most “beatings” that women receive from abusers would only qualify as misdemeanor assault in a court of law. Many of you probably know the statistics, but let me refresh your memory:

1 in 4 women will be abused by a partner in her lifetime. (American Medical Association)

In 92% of all intimate partner DV incidents, the crimes are committed by men against women. (Violence Against Women, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, January 1994).

30% of women killed in the U.S. die at the hands of a husband or boyfriend. (Uniform Crime Report of the FBI)

This is a reproductive justice issue because the ability to live and love free from fear is a central right. Additionally, in relationships where domestic violence is present women are not able to control their reproductive lives, and violence increases when a woman becomes pregnant. This problem is all too real, and in real life, detectives are not assigned to research domestic violence cases, domestic violence is not covered adequately or with enough sensitivity in the news, and victims are blamed.

Yet... we read about brutalized women for pleasure. My first mystery of the summer, _Through the Heart_ featured a woman who falls in love quickly with a man who has all of the warning signs of being an abuser: sweeps her off of her feet, controls what she wears and where she shops, "frees" her financially by paying all her debts, and he asks her to cut off her hair to prove that she loves him. This woman is murdered, and of course the boyfriend is a suspect. It turns out her mother, who has also been abusing her for the duration of  her life is the culprit. Many women who are in a relationship with an abuser were abused as children. What the plot ignores is if the main character had not been killed by her mother, there was a very strong likelihood that she would have been killed by her new abuser.

The next, a very popular book _Girl with the Dragon Tattoo_, features a who-done-it plot, a historical mystery, and corporate scandal. I will take the corporate scandal and the historical mystery but please leave the raped, mutilated, burned women behind. In addition, one of the main characters, Lisbeth Salander clearly suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and is brutally victimized in the story.

I don’t even remember the title of the third book, but the plot was so similar I just had to put it down. Each time I opened a new book I convinced myself that it would contain an original idea, but no. I should have just watched Law and Order SVU.  Some would interpret this analysis as me being an over-sensitive feminist who can’t “relax” but violence against women is not entertainment.

I refuse to be entertained by tales of intrigue about women being killed while there are real women living as prisoners in their own homes and our culture at large and societal institutions do little to address the issue. To redress this, the authors should give portions of  their proceeds to domestic violence and rape crisis agencies that are woefully under-funded. Oddly, this is the exact penance that Lisbeth requires of one of her abusers in _The Girl with a Dragon Tattoo_.

New Jersians do their Organizing in Diners.

Diners are quintessintial New Jersey.  Open 24 hours with vast menus as big as bibles. The ability to eat anything from breakfast to seafood at any time of the day.  Some of them even serve alchol.


The Tic Toc Diner on Route 3 was the location of our first Roe v. Wade Anniverserary Celebration Committee Meeting.  There were 6 of us present, three from the New Jersey Relegious Colalition for Reproductive Choice and three from the fledgling New Jersey Abortion Access Fund.


There are a few things you should know about this group:


* We are a lot of fun!  Most people hold a stereotype of feminists and abortion rights activists as angry, man-hating, barren women...NOT TRUE!  This was a wonderful time with a group of great women.


*Three of us are named "Carol." This tells you something about the age of the women in the group. Most of the women I know in the reproductive rights and reproductive justice movements no longer have functioning uteruses.. meaning, they are past the age where they would be reproducing. But they fight this fight because they remeber a time women abotion wasn't legal, and because they understand that even today, quality reprodictive health care is out of reach for many. 


* We are serious.  I am more than confident that this small group of women will pull off a major event!


Our tentative date is January 22, a Saturday and the actual anniversary of Roe V. Wade. We are in the process of figuring out what the playoff (football) schedule will be so as not to interfere with people's game watching extravaganzas.  We are also trying to identify key note speakers, as well as reproducitive justice champions to give awards to.  Please post your ideas and thoughts, and save the weekend of January 22, for either a Saturday or Sunday late afternoon/early evening celebration in honor of Roe V. Wade, one piece of the reproductive justice puzzle!

Marriage Equality and Reproductive Justice: Untangling the Knots

On August 4, 2010 Proposition 8 was declared unconstitutional in California because it violates citizen's Due Process and Equal Protection rights. A very good friend of mine with a JD also pointed out that they are discovering facts in this case, not arguing legal theory, which makes the decision much more likely to stick.


The decision to overturn Proposition 8 is a victory for same sex couples and a move towards equality for lgbt people. This ruling also directly relates to the reproductive justice movement.  One of my famous quotes is: "all oppresions are linked."  Oppression is like a knotted ball of yarn with many loose ends. It doesn't matter where you start to untangle it, the important thing is that you begin.


The ruling on proposition 8 says a number of things that are interesting to both the feminist and the gay/trans rights movements.


1. That marriage is about MORE than sex and procreation.
2. That lesbian and gay couples HAVE been discriminated against by their right to marriage being denied.
3. That lesbian and gay parents are equally as capable as heterosexual parents, coupled or otherwise, to raise children.
3. Marriage is not about gender, but about a relationship between equals.  Gender no longer defines roles in a marriage.


Proponents of Proposition 8 believe that the state has the duty to regulate marriage, sex, and procreation. I quote directly below from the court document.  

"Proponents’ procreation argument, distilled to its
 essence, is as follows: the state has an interest in encouraging
 sexual activity between people of the opposite sex to occur in 
stable marriages because such sexual activity may lead to pregnancy
 and children, and the state has an interest in encouraging parents
 to raise children in stable households. Tr 3050:17-3051:10. The
 state therefore, the argument goes, has an interest in encouraging
 all opposite-sex sexual activity, whether responsible or
 irresponsible, procreative or otherwise, to occur within a stable 
marriage, as this encourages the development of a social norm that 
opposite-sex sexual activity should occur within marriage. Tr
3053:10-2

The court is acknowledging that gender is not as useful as it once was, pretty radical stuff indeed! As gender defines less of our legal and societal roles, its importance will fade and equality will rise. I believe that gender is a social construct and laws have been developed around this construct-- perhaps its usefulness has finally faded. At least in California legal precedent on marriage it has... for the time being.


Those defending proposition 8 state openly that it is about controlling the family and reproduction.  The court however, recognizes that marriage is about much more than providing couples the right to procreate. In fact, the court believes that this is a limited view of marriage that does not fully articulate the bond between couples who choose to commit to spending the rest of their lives together. Ironically the those who are defending marriage are at the same time, lessening its value. 
The court has ruled:

Never has the state inquired into procreative capacity or 
intent before issuing a marriage license; indeed, a marriage 
license is more than a license to have procreative sexual
 intercourse. FF 21. “[I]t would demean a married couple were it
 to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual

intercourse.” Lawrence, 539 US at 567. 

The court has also stated that marriage, in effect, is a post-gendered institution.  Gender at one time was important in a marriage because work was divided based on gender.  Today, marriage is about a partnership between equals, however the couple decides to divide the daily tasks of living, and carry out the marital contract. 

The evidence at trial shows that marriage in the United 
States traditionally has not been open to same-sex couples. The
 evidence suggests many reasons for this tradition of exclusion,
including gender roles mandated through coverture, FF 26-27, social 
disapproval of same-sex relationships, FF 74, and the reality that the vast majority of people are heterosexual and have had no reason
to challenge the restriction, FF 43. 
...

Today, gender is not
 relevant to the state in determining spouses’ obligations to each
 other and to their dependents. Relative gender composition aside,
 same-sex couples are situated identically to opposite-sex couples 
in terms of their ability to perform the rights and obligations of
 marriage under California law. FF 48. Gender no longer forms an 
essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of
 equals.

This ruling is important, but not the final say in the battle for marriage equality.  It leaves excellent legal precedent for the seperation of sex and gender, and recognizes, for the first time, that marriage is a union of equals.  This ruling also states that marraige is about more than reproduction, a victory for reproductive justice advocates. However interesting, legal theory does not give equality to the countless couples waiting to have their love and lives fully recognized.

Laboring and Delivering in Shackles

The below story, taken directly from NPR exposes the practice of requiring incarcerated women to deliver in shackles.

• ews >
 
• U.S. >
 
• Law

• E-mail
• Share
• Comments (164)
• Recommend (45)
• Print

Difficult Births: Laboring And Delivering In Shackles

by ANDREA HSU

Listen to the Story

All Things Considered

[7 min 30 sec]

• Add to Playlist
• Download
• Transcript

EnlargeAndrea Hsu/NPR

Jennifer Farrar gave birth to her daughter, Breanna, in January 2009. She says she labored with her feet shackled together, and delivered with one hand cuffed to the bed.

text size A A A

July 16, 2010

It's a practice so hidden, many don't realize it exists: the shackling of incarcerated women during childbirth.

Across the U.S., there are stories of women going from jails or prisons to hospitals, where they labor and sometimes even deliver while restrained with handcuffs, leg shackles or both.

In recent years, a growing number of states have moved to ban the practice. Ten states now have anti-shackling legislation: California, Colorado, Illinois, New Mexico, New York, Texas, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia — and as of two weeks ago, Pennsylvania.

There have also been lawsuits in a number of states. On Thursday, a jury in rural Arkansas found that a guard had violated the constitutional rights of a woman by shackling her while she was in labor, though they awarded her just $1. In May, a shackling case was settled in Washington state for $125,000. And in Illinois, there's a class action lawsuit against Cook County and its sheriff, Tom Dart.

Legs Chained, Handcuffed To The Bed

Chicago attorneys Tom Morrissey and Ken Flaxman believe there could be as many as 100 to 150 women included in the class action suit, with cases dating back to late 2006. They're seeking an end to the shackling of inmates during childbirth, and compensation for their clients, including Jennifer Farrar, 25.

Here I am, a mother giving birth. It should be a happy time in my life. I know that I did something wrong, and you have to take the responsibility for what you do. But it wasn't like I was a murderer.

- Jennifer Farrar

In November 2008, Farrar was arrested for cashing fake payroll checks. She was charged with forgery, and booked into the Cook County Jail, a sprawling complex on the southwest side of Chicago, and one of the largest jails in the country. She was almost seven months pregnant at the time.

One day the following January, Farrar went to court for a hearing, and there the pains began. An ambulance was called. Farrar says officers cuffed her hands and chained her legs together. Another chain was placed around her belly, connecting her hands to her feet. When she got to the hospital, she says, the belly chain was removed, but her legs were still chained, and one hand was cuffed to the bed.

"The doctor and the nurse," Farrar says, "they were telling the officer, is this necessary, you know? Where is she going to go? She's in labor you know."

She says she remained that way for eight or nine hours, until it came time to push. At that point, the correctional officer unlocked the leg restraints, but left one arm cuffed to the bed. An hour later, Jennifer Farrar delivered her baby girl.

"Here I am, a mother giving birth," Farrar says. "It should be a happy time in my life. I know that I did something wrong, and you have to take the responsibility for what you do. But it wasn't like I was a murderer."

"Tantamount To Torture"

Another plaintiff, Cora Fletcher, was 17 years old in 2006 when she was charged with retail theft. A year later, she missed a court date, and a warrant was issued for her arrest. A year after that, officers showed up at her house, and took her in when she was eight months pregnant.

It was difficult to try to have a baby like that. Especially by this being my first baby. It was so painful ... and you can't move around like how you want to.

- Cora Fletcher

A couple weeks later, in a prenatal checkup at the jail, it was discovered that Fletcher's baby had no heartbeat. She was taken to the county hospital, where her arms and her legs were shackled to opposite sides of the bed.

Doctors tried to induce her, but it wasn't until three days later that she went into labor. Even then, Fletcher says, she was left with one hand and one leg shackled to the bed. "It was difficult to try to have a baby like that," Fletcher says. "Especially by this being my first baby. It was so painful ... and you can't move around like how you want to."

After delivering her stillborn child, Fletcher was allowed to hold the baby for 20 minutes.

Gail Smith, executive director of the group Chicago Legal Advocacy for Incarcerated Mothers, has worked in Illinois jails and prisons for 25 years and says shackling female inmates during labor is tantamount to torture. "I think that there is a general attitude on the part of some people that they don't deserve to be treated with full human rights," Smith says. "And I find that appalling."

Growth In Female Inmates

The U.S. female prison population has grown eightfold since 1977, according to the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics. Approximately two-thirds are in for nonviolent offenses. And yet, says Malika Saada Saar of the Rebecca Project for Human Rights, departments of corrections have not put enough thought into how treatment for women should be different from that for men.

"If a man behind bars has a broken arm, or needs to have his appendix taken out, that individual is put into restraints, into shackles during medical transport," Saada Saar says. "So essentially what is done for those men has been extended to women. And part of what's different is that we have babies."

Labor is the crux of the issue, says Steve Patterson, spokesman for the Cook County Sheriff's Office. "A correctional officer working on a tier on the midnight shift, or any other shift, is not trained to know when a woman is in labor or not," Patterson says.

States Prohibit Shackles On Pregnant Women

Ten states now have anti-shackling legislation: California, Colorado, Illinois, New Mexico, New York, Texas, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia — and as of two weeks ago, Pennsylvania.

Illinois, which passed anti-shackling legislation in 1999, requires that "when a pregnant female prisoner is brought to a hospital from a county jail for the purpose of delivering her baby, no handcuffs, shackles, or restraints of any kind may be used during her transport to a medical facility for the purpose of delivering her baby. Under no circumstances may leg irons or shackles or waist shackles be used on any pregnant female prisoner who is in labor."

In June 2010, the American Medical Association House of Delegates voted to develop model state legislation prohibiting the use of shackles on pregnant women.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has testified that physical restraints have "made the labor and delivery process more difficult than it needs to be; thus overall putting the health and lives of the women and unborn children at risk."

—Andrea Hsu

Therefore, he says, correctional officers rely on medical personnel, either at the jail or at an outside hospital, to make the determination. Only when labor has been determined are all restraints removed. Patterson says that policy is consistent with state law and is necessary in a public hospital.

"We have to bring inmates to the same area that the general public comes to," Patterson says. "So, if you're laying in hospital bed, and in the next hospital bed is a woman who's in on a double murder charge, because she's pregnant she shouldn't be handcuffed to the side of the bed — I think if you're the person laying in bed next to her you might disagree."

Patterson says in 1998, a pregnant inmate did escape during a medical visit. She was caught just off the hospital grounds. He knows of no escape attempts by pregnant inmates since 1999.

Leg Irons, Belly Chains And Handcuffs

No one is sure just how many incarcerated women give birth each year; Saada Saar estimates it to be about 1,300. Nor does anyone know how widespread shackling is.

Ginette Ferszt, associate professor and psychiatric clinical nurse specialist from the University of Rhode Island College of Nursing, recently conducted a survey of state prisons to learn more about what practices are in place for pregnant inmates.

She and a physician at the Rhode Island Women's State Correctional Facility sent out questionnaires to wardens in all 50 states. The wardens were promised anonymity, and 19 replied. The survey asked about many issues related to pregnancy, including prenatal care, nutritional needs and shackling.

Ferszt says she was quite surprised to find that two facilities continue to use leg irons, belly chains and handcuffs during transport to prenatal visits.

She also learned that among the 19 prisons that responded, six of them cuff either a woman's hands or her ankle when labor begins. During the delivery of the baby, one prison says that handcuffs stay on, and four reported back that an ankle shackle remains on.

While disturbed by the findings, Ferszt did find hope in conversations with two wardens, when she realized their shackling policies weren't something they'd thought much about.

"For many rules and policies whether for women or men, they've existed for them a long time," Ferszt says. "It hadn't really occurred to these two wardens that this could potentially be a health problem, a health issue."

She says the two wardens have since said they'll sit down and make changes.

Blanket Abortion Coverage Prohibition Passess

On July 29, 2010 the Department of Health and Human Services released regulations for the new high-risk insurance plans. These plans will cover people who are denied private health insurance due to pre-existing medical conditions. The blanket abortion coverage prohibition passed, and the insurance will not cover abortions.


This legislation denies access to abortion for women whose pregnancies have a likelihood of being very risky.  Women with cancer, diabetes, and AIDS. This policy just doesn't makes sense.  I have said it before and I will continue to say it: Abortion is a private health care decision between a woman, her doctor, and if she chooses, her family. No one else has the right to be in that room, making that very private decision. Especially if a woman already has health risks that compound the issue.

Send a message to the Department of Health and Human Services letting them know that these regulations are impractical and unsupported. Planned Parenthood has created a letter which you can send by clicking here: take a moment to send a message to HHS