No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Abortion Access for Women in Custody in the Wake of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 April 2024
Abstract
The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization made it drastically harder for women to access abortions. The Dobbs decision has had a disproportionate impact on women who are incarcerated or on some form of community supervision such as probation or parole. This Note analyzes a potential right to an abortion for women involved in the criminal justice system, even those living in states that have banned or deeply restricted abortion access after the Dobbs decision. In doing so, this Note looks for different constitutional avenues to protect incarcerated women’s right to an abortion, including under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
- Type
- Notes
- Information
- Copyright
- © 2024 The Author(s)
References
1 Howard Fischer, Ruling Clears Way for Women Inmates Seeking Abortions, Arizona Daily Sun (Aug. 24, 2005), http://azdailysun.com/ruling-clears-way-for-womeninmates-seeking-abortions/article_0801abc6-3164-5cbc-9290-f605baccc3cb.html [https://perma.cc/5TT4-7U59].
2 Id.
3 Rachel Roth, “She Doesn’t Deserve to Be Treated Like This”: Prisons as Sites of Reproductive Injustice 6, in Radical Reproductive Justice: Foundations, Theory, Practice, Critique (The Feminist Press 2017).
4 Id. at 5.
5 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 142 S. Ct. 2228 (2022).
6 Tracking the States Where Abortion is Now Banned, N.Y. Times (last updated May 23, 2023, 3:00 PM), https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/us/abortion-laws-roe-v-wade.html [https://perma.cc/SJ5R-SG8B] [hereinafter Tracking the States].
7 The population of women of reproductive age in the thirteen U.S. states that have banned abortion is roughly 16.5 million. Interactive Map: U.S. Abortion Policies and Access After Roe, Guttmacher Institute (June 20, 2023), https://states.guttmacher.org/policies/alabama/demographic-info [https://perma.cc/VFA5-MMVG].
8 Since the Dobbs decision the number of abortion procedures done in the United States has decreased by over 5000 per month. See Society of Family Planning, #WeCount Report 9 (Oct. 28, 2022), https://www.societyfp.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/SFPWeCountReport_AprtoAug2022_ReleaseOct2022-1.pdf. [https://perma.cc/MT2J-7P3W].
9 See generally Joshua Sharfstein, Jailed and Pregnant: What the Roe Repeal Means for Incarcerated People, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg Sch. of Pub. Health (Sept. 21, 2022), https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2022/abortion-care-for-incarcerated-people-after-dobbs [https://perma.cc/Y6NG-BC3V].
10 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 142 S. Ct. 2228 (2022).
11 Cynthia Chandler, Death and Dying in America: The Prison Industrial Complex’s Impact on Women’s Health, 18 Berkeley Women’s L.J. 40, 42 (2003); Min Kyoung Kim et. al., Socioeconomic Status can Affect Pregnancy Outcomes and Complications, Even with a Universal Healthcare System, 17 Int’l J. for Equity in Health 1, 1-2 (2018).
12 Carolyn Sufrin, Alexa Kolbi-Molinas & Rachel Roth, Reproductive Justice, Health Disparities and Incarcerated Women in the United States, 47 Persps. on Sexual & Reproductive Health 213, 215 (2015).
13 Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103 (1976).
14 Incarcerated Women and Girls, The Sentencing Project, (May 2022), https://www.sentencingproject.org/app/uploads/2022/11/Incarcerated-Women-and-Girls.pdf [https://perma.cc/RXH5-E3J5] [hereinafter Incarcerated Women]. The number of women incarcerated in the United States in 2019 was higher at 231,000. See Aleks Kajstura, Women’s Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2019, Prison Pol’y Initiative (Oct. 29, 2019), https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2019women.html [https://perma.cc/D2U9-HK2J]. The drop between 2019 and 2020 is due to women being released due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Incarcerated Women supra.
15 Incarcerated Women, supra note 14.
16 Kajstura, supra note 14.
17 Due to a lack of centralized data determining the exact percentage of women who enter jail or prison is very difficult to determine. Some sources have found that up to 6-10% of women entering jails and prisons are pregnant. See Diana Kasdan, Abortion Access for Incarcerated Women: Are Correctional Health Practices in Conflict with Constitutional Standards?, 41(1) Persps. on Sexual and Reproductive Health 59, 59 (2009).
18 Carolyn Sufrin, Lauren Beal, Jennifer Clarke, Rachel Jones & William D. Mosher, Pregnancy Outcomes in US Prisons, 2016-2017, 109(5) Am. J. Pub. Health 799, 803 (2019).
19 Id.; see Kajstura, supra note 14.
20 Jails are county- or municipality-run facilities which confine people sentenced to a short sentence of a year or less, convicted of a longer sentence and awaiting transfer to prison, accused of violating the terms of their probation or parole, individuals held waiting for resolution of a federal criminal charge or immigration hearing, and most commonly individuals who are charged with a state criminal offense and held awaiting the disposition of their offense, either because they were not offered bail or were unable to post bail. See Elizabeth Swavola, Kristine Riley & Ram Subramanian, Overlooked: Women and Jails in an Era of Reform, Vera Inst. of J. (2016), www.vera.org/overlooked-women-and-jails-report [https://perma.cc/VU8G-AFK3].
21 Id.
22 The number of women in jails has increased from 8,000 to 110,000 from 1970 to 2015, a much greater rate than the increase of women incarcerated overall. Swavola et al., supra note 20, at 6. A discussion of the implications of the cash bail system in the United States and its impact on mothers and pregnant people while deeply tied to the issues I will discuss is beyond the scope of this note.
23 Tracking the States, supra note 6.
24 Melissa Jeltsen, We Are Not Prepared for the Coming Surge of Babies, Atlantic (Dec. 16, 2022), https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2022/12/abortion-post-roe-rise-in-births-baby-care/672479/ [https://perma.cc/N4R8-KFDH].
25 Katrina Kimport, Abortion After Dobbs: Defendants, Denials, and Delays, 8 Sci. Adv. 1, 1 (2022).
26 Incarcerated Women, supra note 14.
27 Swavola et al., supra note 20, at 11.
28 U.S. Criminal Justice Data, The Sentencing Project (2022), https://www.sentencingproject.org/research/us-criminal-justice-data/ [https://perma.cc/Y5JZ-J58L]. These nine states are Mississippi, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Texas, Georgia, Kentucky, Alabama, and Idaho (listed in order by incarceration rate). The incarceration rates in these nine states range from 5.67 to 3.86 times higher than the state with the lowest incarceration rate, Massachusetts.
29 Nicolette Wolfrey, Incarceration Harms Moms and Babies, Nat’l P’ship for Women & Families: Moms and Babies Series (June 2021), https://nationalpartnership.org/report/incarceration-harms-moms-and-babies/ [https://perma.cc/2KT5-P776].
30 See Swavola et al., supra note 20, at 17.
31 Swavola et al., supra note 20, at 17.
32 First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 301, 132 Stat. 5194, 5217; Joe Hernandez, More States are Restricting the Shackling of Pregnant Inmates, but It Still Occurs, NPR (Apr. 22, 2022, 8:48 AM), https://www.npr.org/2022/04/22/1093836514/shackle-pregnant-inmates-tennessee [https://perma.cc/Z8EJ-SY4H].
33 Hernandez, supra note 32.
34 Chandler, supra note 11, at 42.
35 Swavola et al., supra note 20, at 9; Laura M. Maruschak, Marcus Berzofsky & Jennifer Unangst, U.S. Dep’t of Just., Medical Problems of State and Federal Prisoners and Jail Inmates, 2011-2012 8 (Oct. 4, 2016).
36 Wolfrey, supra note 29.
37 Sufrin et. al., supra note 12, at 213.
38 Wolfrey, supra note 29, at 2.
39 Ginette G. Ferszt, Michelle Palmer & Christine McGrane, Where Does Your State Stand on Shackling of Pregnant Incarcerated Women?, 22 Nursing for Women’s Health 17, 19 (2018).
40 Swavola et al., supra note 20, at 17.
41 Id. Only nine states offer nursey programs that allow a mother to stay in contact with her child for a more extended period. For a sampling of programs that allow longer contact between an incarcerated mother and her baby, see Residential Parenting Program Fact Sheet, Wash. State Dep’t of Corrs. (May 2017). Further, even in states with these programs, the number of women and babies they can accommodate is limited, and they typically have restrictions on which inmates can participate. Hendrik DeBoer, Prison Nursery Programs in Other States, Conn. Off. of Legis. Rsch. (Mar. 30, 2012), https://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/rpt/2012-R-0157.htm [https://perma.cc/QL4G-35LV].
42 Kimberly Erin Gillette, The Psychological and Emotional Experiences of Pregnant and Postpartum Incarcerated Women (2011) (Master’s thesis, Smith College) (Smith ScholarWorks).
43 Mariann Howland et al., Depressive Symptoms Among Pregnant and Postpartum Women in Prison, 66 J. of Midwifery & Women’s Health 494, 494 (2021).
44 Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 523 (1984).
45 Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 164 (1973) opened up a Fourteenth Amendment right for women to terminate their pregnancies.
46 Rachel Roth, Abortion Access for Imprisoned Women: Marginalized Medical Care for a Marginalized Group, 21 Women’s Health Issues S14, S14 (2011) [hereinafter Abortion Access for Imprisoned Women].
47 See Roe v. Crawford, 514 F.3d 789, 793 (8th Cir. 2008); Victoria W. v. Larpenter, 369 F.3d 475, 484 (5th Cir. 2004); Monmouth Cnty. Corr. Inst’l Inmates v. Lanzaro, 834 F.2d 326, 331-32 (3d Cir. 1987); Doe v. Arpaio, 150 P.3d 1258,1261-62 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
48 Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 78-79 (1987).
49 Id. at 89-91.
50 Facilities denying incarcerated women abortions work against the objectives of incarceration, as the anxiety of the woman’s unwanted pregnancy could harm her reintegration into society once released and will create another financial burden on the woman, which could lead to greater recidivism. Lanzaro, 834 F.2d at 342 n.25.
51 See Roe v. Crawford, 514 F.3d 789 (8th Cir. 2008); Victoria W. v. Larpenter, 369 F.3d 475 (5th Cir. 2004); Bryant v. Maffucci, 923 F.2d 979 (2d Cir. 1991); Lanzaro, 834 F.2d 326; Doe v. Barron, 92 F. Supp.2d 694 (S.D. Ohio 1999); Doe v. Arpaio, 150 P.3d 1258 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). For an in-depth discussion of female inmates’ access to abortion under the Fourteenth Amendment, see Angela Thomas, Note, Inmate Access to Elective Abortion: Social Policy, Medicine and the Law, 19 Health Matrix 539 (2009).
52 Lanzaro, 834 F.2d at 349.
53 Estelle v. Gamble stated that the government is required “to provide medical care for those whom it is punishing by incarceration” because inmates are completely reliant on prison authorities to treat their medical needs. Therefore, the Estelle Court held that deliberate indifference by prison officials to an inmate’s serious medical need is an “unnecessary and unwanton infliction of pain” that violates the Eighth Amendment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976).
54 Lanzaro, 834 F.2d at 349; Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976).
55 Lanzaro, 834 F.2d at 348.
56 Id.
57 Lanzaro, 834 F.2d at 348-349; Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
58 Lanzaro, 834 F.2d at 350-51.
59 Kasdan, supra note 16, at 59.
60 See Lauren Kuhlik & Carolyn Sufrin, Pregnancy, Systematic Disregard and Degradation, and Carceral Institutions, 14 Harv. L. & Pol’y Rev. 417, 435 (2020) (transport officers told inmate on her way to an abortion that she was “murdering her baby”).
61 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 142 S. Ct. 2228 (2022); Roe v. Crawford, 514 F.3d 789 (8th Cir. 2008); Victoria W. v. Larpenter, 369 F.3d 475 (5th Cir. 2004); Bryant v. Maffucci, 923 F.2d 979 (2d Cir. 1991); Lanzaro, 834 F.2d 326.
62 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Program Statement, No. 5200.07: Female Offender Manual (2021) [hereinafter Female Offender Manual 2021].
63 Id.
64 Id.; see Avalon Johnson, Note and Comment, Access to Elective Abortions for Female Prisoners Under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, 27 Am. J.L. & Med. 652, 655-56 (2011) (discussing the negative implications of these past counseling requirements).
65 Female Offender Manual 2021, supra note 58.
66 Rebecca Grant, Abortion Behind Bars, Vice News (Mar. 16, 2017), https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/3kp9b5/abortion-behind-bars-terminating-a-pregnancy-in-prison-can-be-next-to-impossible [https://perma.cc/TMD6-JTRK].
67 Access Denied: Origins of the Hyde Amendment and Other Restrictions on Public Funding for Abortion, Am. Civil Liberties Union, https://www.aclu.org/other/access-denied-origins-hyde-amendment-and-other-restrictions-public-funding-abortion#:~:text=Wade%20was%20decided%2C%20Congress%20passed,carrying%20the%20pregnancy%20to%20term [https://perma.cc/VWF4-34Y5] (last visited Apr. 2, 2023).
68 Julie Rovner, Abortion Funding Ban Has Evolved Over the Years, NPR (Dec. 14, 2009, 6:00 AM), https://www.npr.org/2009/12/14/121402281/abortion-funding-ban-has-evolved-over-the-years [https://perma.cc/YE3L-KLBR].
69 Id.
70 42 U.S.C. §1396d(a)(30)(A); State Funding of Abortions Under Medicaid, KFF, https://www.kff.org/medicaid/state-indicator/abortion-under-medicaid/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D [https://perma.cc/8WZP-U2DM] (last visited Sep. 29, 2023).
71 Female Offender Manual 2021, supra note 58.
72 Fed. Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Dep’t of Just., Program Statement, No. 5200.07 CN-1: Female Offender Manual (2022) [hereinafter Female Offender Manual 2022].
73 Id.; see Kuhlik & Sufrin, supra note 60, at 432.
74 Gibson v. Matthews, 926 F.2d 532 (6th Cir. 1991).
75 Id. at 533.
76 Id. at 533-34.
77 Id. at 534.
78 Id.
79 Female Offenders, Fed. Bureau of Prisons, https://www.bop.gov/inmates/custody_and_care/female_offenders.jsp#female_facilities [https://perma.cc/7RC8-YWS4] (last visited Jan. 11, 2023); Tracking the States, supra note 6.
80 Female Offender Manual 2022, supra note 72.
81 Except for facilities located in Delaware, New Jersey or Pennsylvania where the Eighth Amendment framework in Lanzaro would be binding.
82 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 142 S. Ct. 2228 (2022); Sharfstein, supra note 9.
83 State Standards for Pregnancy-Related Health Care and Abortion for Women in Prison, Am. Civil Liberties Union (last updated July 2012), https://www.aclu.org/state-standards-pregnancy-related-health-care-and-abortion-women-prison-0#top [https://perma.cc/64EY-A69D] [hereinafter State Standards].
84 Id. These states were Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Washington, and the District of Columbia.
85 See Roe v. Crawford, 514 F.3d 789 (8th Cir. 2008); Victoria W. v. Larpenter, 369 F.3d 475 (5th Cir. 2004); Bryant v. Maffucci, 923 F.2d 979 (2d Cir. 1991); Monmouth Cnty. Corr. Inst’l Inmates v. Lanzaro, 834 F.2d 326 (3d Cir. 1987); Doe v. Barron, 92 F. Supp.2d 694 (S.D. Ohio 1999); Doe v. Arpaio, 150 P.3d 1258 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
86 Abortion Access for Imprisoned Women, supra note 44 at S15. As jails and prisons in their very nature restrict the information inmates can receive, and inmates’ ability to obtain materials and information on their own is limited, inmates are often at the mercy of jail or prison staff informing them about their right to an abortion and the process.
87 Rachel Roth, Searching for the State: Who Governs Prisoners’ Reproductive Rights?, 11 Soc. Pols.: Int’l Stud. in Gender, State & Soc’y 412, 421 (2004).
88 Id.
89 Carolyn Sufrin et al., Abortion Access for Incarcerated People: Incidence of Abortion and Policies at U.S. Prisons and Jails, 138 Obstetrics & Gynecology 330, 332 (2021) [hereinafter Incidence of Abortion and Policies at U.S. Prisons and Jails]; Kasdan, supra note 16, at 59.
90 Abortion Access for Imprisoned Women, supra note 44, at S15. See Katie Rose Quandt & Leah Wong, Recent Studies Shed Light on what Reproductive “Choice” Looks Like in Prisons and Jails, Prison Pol’y Initiative: Briefings (Dec. 8, 2021), https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2021/12/08/reproductive_choice/ [https://perma.cc/P4RB-WZ7Y].
91 Abortion Access for Imprisoned Women, supra note 44, at S15.
92 State Standards, supra note 83; Monmouth Cnty. Corr. Inst’l Inmates v. Lanzaro, 834 F.2d 326 (3d Cir. 1987).
93 Many Pennsylvania jails also do not have any policies on how to deal with pregnancy overall. The lack of policies has led to tragedy. In one case, a prison repeatedly refused medical attention to a plaintiff who was seven-and-a-half-months pregnant and vaginally bleeding during a high-risk pregnancy. When she finally arrived at the hospital it was discovered she had suffered a placental abruption, and the baby subsequently died. Mori v. Allegheny Cnty., 51 F.Supp.3d 558, 564 (W.D. Pa. 2014).
94 See id.; Lanzaro, 834 F.2d 326.
95 Jenny Vanyur et al., Am. Civil Liberties Union of Pa., Reproductive Health Locked Up 35-39 (2012), https://www.aclupa.org/sites/default/files/RHLUrpt.pdf [https://perma.cc/N3G7-MEW5].
96 Lanzaro, 834 F.2d 326.
97 N.J. Admin. Code § 10A:16-6.4(b) (2019).
98 Cal. Penal Code § 4028 (West 2019).
99 Id.
100 Melissa Goodman, Ruth Dawson & Phyllida Burlingame, Reproductive Health Behind Bars in California: A Report from the ACLU of California 10 (2016), https://www.aclunc.org/sites/default/files/Reproductive%20Health%20Behind%20Bars%20in%20California.pdf [https://perma.cc/256Z-YRSM].
101 Shefali Luthra & Barbara Rodriguez, Blue States Have Passed Laws to Shore up Abortion Access, but It May Not Be Enough to Address Potential Surge, The 19th* (May 3, 2022, 6:07 PM), https://19thnews.org/2022/05/blue-states-laws-codify-abortion-access-protections/ [https://perma.cc/6DY5-HTKT].
102 N.Y. Correct. §611.
103 Sam Dier, Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker Moves to Make Abortion More Accessible to People in Prisons, NPR Ill. (Nov. 3, 2022, 5:43 PM), https://www.nprillinois.org/illinois/2022-11-03/illinois-gov-jb-pritzker-moves-to-make-abortion-more-accessible-to-people-in-prisons [https://perma.cc/396Y-P62Q].
104 See Monmouth Cnty. Correctional Institutional Inmates v. Lanzaro, 834 F.2d 326, 349 (3d Cir. 1987).
105 Mark Egerman, Roe v. Crawford: Do Inmates Have an Eighth Amendment Right to Elective Abortions?, Harv. J. L. & Gender 423, 425 (2008).
106 U.S. Const. amend. VIII.
107 Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103 (1976).
108 Id.
109 Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104 (quoting Gregg v. Georgia 428 U.S. 153, 173 (1976)).
110 Monmouth Cnty. Correctional Institution Inmates v. Lanzaro, 834 F.2d 326, 346 (1987).
111 Id.
112 Id. at 347.
113 Id.
114 Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105 (1976).
115 Todaro v. Ward, 565 F.2d 48, 52 (2d Cir. 1977).
116 Lanzaro, 834 F.2d at 347.
117 Id.
118 See id.
119 See generally Egerman, supra note 105, at 433.
120 Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 153 (1973).
121 Manuel Villa, The Mental Health Crisis Facing Women in Prison, Marshall Project, (June 22, 2017, 2:29 PM), https://www.themarshallproject.org/2017/06/22/the-mental-health-crisis-facing-women-in-prison [https://perma.cc/8YVT-E4AK].
122 Postpartum Depression, Mayo Clinic, https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/postpartum-depression/symptoms-causes/syc-20376617?p=1 [https://perma.cc/C3CC-S37Q] (last visited Jan. 14, 2023).
123 Id.
124 Partridge v. Two Unknown Police Officers of City of Houston, Tex, 791 F.2d 1182, 1187 (5th Cir. 1986); Woodall v. Foti, 648 F.2d 268, 272 (5th Circuit 1981); Inmates of Allegheny Cnty. Jail v. Pierce, 612 F.2d 754, 763 (3d. Cir. 1979); Bowring v. Godwin, 551 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1977).
125 Am. Civil Liberties Union, Still Worse than Second-Class Solitary Confinement of Women in the United States 9 (2019), https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/062419-sj-solitaryreportcover.pdf [https://perma.cc/424K-VDEV]; Hernandez, supra note 32.
126 G.A. Res. 65/229, United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-Custodial
Measures for Women Offenders (the Bangkok Rules) (Dec. 21, 2010); G.A. Res. 70/175, United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules) (Dec. 17, 2015).
127 Anne Vitale, Note, Inmate Abortions - The Right to Government Funding Behind Prison Gates, 48 Fordham L. Rev. 550, 563 (1980).
128 Sheryl Pimlott Kubiak et al., Does Subsequent Criminal Justice Involvement Predict Foster Care and Termination of Parental Rights for Children Born to Incarcerated Women?, 27 Soc. Work Pub. Health 129 (2012).
129 Monmouth Cnty. Correctional Institution Inmates v. Lanzaro, 834 F.2d 326, 347 (1987).
130 Swavola et al., supra note 20, at 17.
131 Id.
133 Lanzaro, 834 F.2d at 347.
134 Goodman et al., supra note 100, at 11.
135 Id. at 18.
136 Id. at 15. Hyperemesis gravidarum is when pregnant women suffer from severe nausea and vomiting during pregnancy beyond what is typically understood as morning sickness. Hyperemesis Gravidarum, Cleveland Clinic, https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/12232-hyperemesis-gravidarum [https://perma.cc/6EAT-KSE9] (last visited June 1, 2023).
137 Goodman et al., supra note 100, at 15-16; Women’s Jail Monitors, Female Inmates in Santa Clara County & the Need For a Gender Responsive Protocol 11 (SSC Commission on the Status of Women 2015), https://womenspolicy.sccgov.org/sites/g/files/exjcpb1076/files/CSW-jail-report-2015-final.pdf [https://perma.cc/J32X-U93F].
138 Goodman et al., supra note 100, at 15-16.
139 Id.
140 Id.
141 Sarah McCammon, Pregnant, Locked up, and Alone, NPR (June 16, 2019 5:00 AM), https://www.npr.org/2019/06/16/732109546/pregnant-locked-up-and-alone [https://perma.cc/49HE-SWGG].
142 Id.
143 Egerman, supra note 105, at 433.
144 U.S. Const. amend. VIII; Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-05 (1976).
145 Monmouth Cnty. Correctional Institution Inmates v. Lanzaro, 834 F.2d 326, 347 (1987).
146 Id. at 350.
147 Id. at 348-51. The Lanzaro court also argues that the prison or jail should pay for the procedure and transportation, overtime, and other costs if the inmate is unable to because the institution completely controls the inmate’s ability to work, how much she may work, and her wages, and therefore is directly responsible for whether she can afford the procedure.
148 See Roe v. Crawford, 514 F.3d 789 (8th Cir. 2008); Victoria W. v. Larpenter, 369 F.3d 475 (5th Cir. 2004); Bryant v. Maffucci, 923 F.2d 979 (2d Cir. 1991); Doe v. Barron, 92 F. Supp.2d 694 (S.D. Ohio 1999); Doe v. Arpaio, 150 P.3d 1258 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
149 Larpenter, 369 F. 3d at 486 n.52.
150 Id.
151 Victoria W. v. Larpenter, 205 F. Supp. 2d 580, 601 (E.D. La. 2002).
152 Id.
153 Id. at 601.
154 Victoria W. v. Larpenter, 369 F. 3d 475 (5th Cir. 2004); Victoria W. v. Larpenter, 205 F. Supp. 2d 580 (E.D. La. 2002).
155 Roe v. Crawford, 514 F.3d 789, 798 (8th Cir. 2008)
156 Larpenter, 205 F. Supp. at 600-01.
157 Roe v. Crawford, 514 F.3d 789, 800 (8th Cir. 2008)
158 Id.
159 Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103 (1976).
160 Vitale, supra note 127, at 560.
161 Monmouth Cnty. Corr. Inst’l Inmates v. Lanzaro, 834 F.2d 326, 342-43 (3d Cir. 1987).
162 Despite their newer tenure on the Supreme Court, a look at Justices Coney Barrett, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh’s opinions show they have not been interested in protecting and expanding prisoners’ Eighth Amendment rights. See McCottrell v. White, 933 F. 3d 651 (7th Cir. 2019) (Barrett, J., dissenting) (while majority held that there was an eighth amendment violation when corrections officer shot into a crowd and injured two inmates, Barrett dissented and stated there was “no evidence officers shot into the crowd” despite video footage to the contrary); Bucklew v. Precythe, 139 S.Ct. 1112, 1124 (2019) (finding that the Eighth Amendment does not guarantee death row inmates a painless death); Bucklew v. Precythe, 139 S. Ct. 1112, 1136 (2019) (Kavanaugh, J., concurring) (showing his support for extending the Glossip alternative-procedure requirement). Throughout his thirty-one years on the Supreme Court Justice Thomas has consistently opined that the Eighth Amendment should be restrained even in the most egregious cases. See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1992) (Thomas, J., dissenting) (writing that guards’ use of excessive physical force in beating an inmate did not violate the Eighth Amendment because the inmate’s broken teeth, cracked dental plate and facial swelling were not a serious physical injury). Justice Alito has never voted to expand Eighth Amendment rights as a Supreme Court Justice.
163 Justices Kavanaugh, Barrett, Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas declined to constitutionally protect abortion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health. Chief Justice Roberts reached the same conclusion but declined to vote to overturn the precedents set in Dobbs and Casey. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 142 S. Ct. 2228, 2310-11 (2022) (Roberts, C.J., concurring).
164 Lanzaro, 834 F.2d at 342-43.
165 N.J. Admin. Code § 10A:16-6.4(b) (2019); Cal. Penal Code § 4028 (West 2019).
166 Samantha Laufer, Reproductive Healthcare for Incarcerated Women: From “Rights” to “Dignity,” 56 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 1785, 1788 (2019).
167 Id.
168 For an in-depth discussion of the Estelle v. Gamble standard inadequacy to protect the health interests of women in carceral settings, see Estalyn Marquis, “Nothing Less Than the Dignity of Man”: Women Prisoners, Reproductive Health, and Unequal Access to Justice Under the Eighth Amendment 106 Cal. L. Rev. 203 (2018).
169 Id. at 205.
170 Id.
171 For cases where male correctional officials failed to adequately provide medical attention to pregnant women that courts have held did not rise to an Eighth Amendment violation, see Laufer, supra note 166, at 1788-90.
172 See Deanna Paul, A Pregnant Inmate Came to Term in Jail. Lawyers Say She Was Forced to Give Birth There – Alone., Wash. Post (May 6, 2019, 3:38 PM), https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/16/us/georgia-birth-clayton-county.html [https://perma.cc/3DR9-5YJ4]; Eduardo Medina, Woman Sues Over Death of Child Born in Georgia Jail, N.Y. Times (Feb. 16, 2022), https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/16/us/georgia-birth-clayton-county.html [https://perma.cc/93YN-ZZTE]; Grant Lancaster, Inmate at Pulaski County Jail Gives Birth Alone in Cell, Ark. Democrat-Gazette (Nov. 21, 2022, 9:16 AM), https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2022/nov/21/inmate-at-pulaski-county-jail-gives-birth-in-cell/ [https://perma.cc/QC2C-SCNF]; Diana Claitor & Burke Butler, Pregnant Women in Texas County Jails Deserve Better Than This, Dallas Morning News (June 26, 2014, 10:22 PM), https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2014/06/27/pregnant-women-in-texas-county-jails-deserve-better-than-this/ [https://perma.cc/EE95-8FHK].
173 Id.
174 Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 827 (1994) (requiring prisoner to show that prison official had a subjectively culpable state of mind to prove deliberate indifference).
175 Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey, U.S. Bureau of Lab. Stats., (last modified Jan. 25, 2023) [https://perma.cc/5LTD-E6CY] https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm.
176 Marquis, supra note 159, at 217.
177 Lauren Kent & Nicole Lewis, A Texas Jail Delayed My Prenatal Care to Keep Costs Down, Then I Had a Miscarriage, Marshall Project: Life Inside (July 7, 2023, 6:00 AM), https://www.themarshallproject.org/2023/07/07/texas-miscarriage-collin-county-jail-wellpath?utm_source=TMP-Newsletter&utm_campaign=2c3c8a8b0a-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2023_07_07_03_55&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_5e02cdad9d-2c3c8a8b0a-%5BLIST_EMAIL_ID%5D [https://perma.cc/8FT8-GMDP].
178 Id.
179 Id.
180 Kent v. Collin Cnty., No. 4:21-CV-412-SDJ, 2022 WL 949963, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 29, 2022).
181 Id. at *3.
182 Kent, supra note 177.
183 Id.
184 Id.
185 Id.
186 Kent v. Collin Cnty., No. 4:21-CV-412-SDJ, 2022 WL 949963, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 29, 2022).
187 Id.
188 Kent v. Collin Cnty., Docket No. 4:21-cv-00412 (E.D. Tex. May 29, 2021).
189 Laufer, supra note 166, at 1788-90.
190 Robyn Horsager-Boehrer, UTIs During Pregnancy Are Common and Treatable, UT Sw. Med. Ctr.: Your Pregnancy Matters (Sept. 20, 2021), https://utswmed.org/medblog/utis-during-pregnancy/ [https://perma.cc/R6F5-EG3G].
191 Is It Normal to Pee Blood with a UTI?, Planned Parenthood: Ask the Experts (June 22, 2018, 8:36 PM), https://www.plannedparenthood.org/blog/is-it-normal-to-pee-blood-with-an-uti [https://perma.cc/R35K-ZQGX].
192 Robyn Horsager-Boehrer, UTIs During Pregnancy Are Common and Treatable, UT Sw. Med. Ctr.: Your Pregnancy Matters (September 20, 2021), https://utswmed.org/medblog/utis-during-pregnancy/#:~:text=UTIs%20are%20equally%20common%20in,delivery%2C%20or%20even%20fetal%20loss [https://perma.cc/R6F5-EG3G].
193 United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303, 317-28 (1946).
194 U.S. Comm’n on Civ. Rts., The Civil Rights Implications of Cash Bail 11 (2022), https://www.usccr.gov/files/2022-01/USCCR-Bail-Reform-Report-01-20-22.pdf [https://perma.cc/Y23H-CH9V].
195 Swavola et al., supra note 20, at 29.
196 Bernadette Rabuy & Daniel Kopf, Detaining the Poor, Prison Pol’y Initiative (May 10, 2016).
197 Maya Yang, Abortion Bans Create “Insurmountable Barriers” for Incarcerated Women in US, Guardian (Oct. 21, 2022, 04:00 PM), https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/oct/21/us-abortion-bans-insurmountable-barriers-incarcerated-women [https://perma.cc/ZFP2-9T9F].
198 Id.
199 Complaint at 2, Cathey v. Maury Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, No. 1:16-cv-00115 (M.D. Tenn. May 5, 2017).
200 Id.
201 Id.
202 Id. at 3-4; Yang, supra note 197.
203 Complaint at 3, Cathey v. Maury Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, No. 1:16-cv-00115 (M.D. Tenn. May 5, 2017).
204 Cathey v. Maury Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, No. 1:16-cv-00115, slip op. at 3-6 (M.D. Tenn. May 5, 2017).
205 Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535-36 (1979).
206 Id. at 537.
207 Id. at 539 n.20.
208 See Hubbard v. Taylor, 399 F. 3d 150, 167 n.23 (3d Cir. 2005) (protections for pretrial detainees greater than convicted prisoner); Campbell v. McGruder, 580 F.2d 521, 527 n.9 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (protections for pretrial detainees greater than convicted prisoner); Patten v. Nichols, 274 F.3d 829, 834 (4th Cir. 2001) (protections for pretrial detainees at least as great as convicted prisoner); Board v. Farham, 394 F.3d 469, 477 (7th Cir. 2005) (protections for pretrial detainees at least as great as convicted prisoner).
209 Inmates of Allegheny Cnty. Jail v. Pierce, 612 F.2d 754, 762 (3d Cir. 1979).
210 Institutions where individuals are detained pretrial must meet at a minimum the deliberate indifference standard of Estelle v. Gamble when dealing with the constitutional protections of those detained pretrial.
211 Monmouth Cnty. Corr. Inst’l Inmates v. Lanzaro, 834 F.2d 326, 342-43 (3d Cir. 1987).
212 See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 537 (1979).
213 See id. at 539 n.20.
214 Inmates of Allegheny Cnty. Jail v. Pierce, 612 F.2d 754, 762 (3d Cir. 1979); City of Revere v. Massachusetts General Hospital, 463 U.S. 239, 345 (1983).
215 Lanzaro, 834 F.2d at 350.
216 Marielle Kirstein et al., 100 Days Post-Roe: At Least 66 Clinics Across 15 States Have Stopped Offering Abortion Care, Guttmacher Inst. (Oct. 6, 2022), https://www.guttmacher.org/2022/10/100-days-post-roe-least-66-clinics-across-15-us-states-have-stopped-offering-abortion-care [https://perma.cc/YE6G-UX3W].
217 Hamilton County, Tennessee encompasses the city of Chattanooga. City of Chattanooga, Mun. Tech. Advisory Serv., https://www.mtas.tennessee.edu/city/Chattanooga [https://perma.cc/F4DP-ARZN] (last visited Jan. 20, 2023).
218 Zack Peterson, Hamilton County Judge Scolded for Not Allowing a Woman to Drive to Atlanta for an Abortion She Has a Legal Right to, Chattanooga Times Free Press (Mar. 14, 2019, 6:23 PM), https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2019/mar/14/judge-rebukes-colleague-denying-chattanoogwom/ [https://perma.cc/8GEM-KH6C].
219 The woman’s attorney provided the Judge with timesheets showing the woman’s initial and entrance and exit times as documentation, but Stanton said this was insufficient and requested video footage from the facility. Id.
220 Id.
221 Id.
222 Id.
223 Id.
224 In 2019, the right to an abortion was still constitutionally protected by Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).
225 Peterson, supra note 218.
226 Id.
227 Id.
228 Id.
229 Id.
230 Cleveland Bar Ass’n v. Cleary, 754 N.E.2d 235, 238 (Ohio 2001).
231 Id. at 239.
232 Id.
233 Id. at 240. This was despite Kawaguchi’s PSI stating she was a good candidate for probation. Id. at 240-41.
234 Id. at 240-41.
235 Id. at 242.
236 Id.
237 Id.
238 Id. at 250.
239 Wanda Bertram & Wendy Sawyer, What the End of Roe v. Wade Will Mean for People on Probation and Parole, Prison Pol’y Initiative (June 30, 2022), https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2022/06/30/roe/ [https://perma.cc/DBA8-QT9Y].
240 Danielle Kaeble, Bureau of Just. Stats., U.S. Dep’t of Just., Probation and Parole in the United States, 2020, 2, 28 (2021).
241 See Learn About Your Probation Sentence, Mass. Probation Serv., https://www.mass.gov/service-details/learn-about-your-probation-sentence [https://perma.cc/4WBR-CZTH] (last visited Jan. 20, 2023); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42A.154 (2017); Adult Court FAQs, NYC Prob., https://www.nyc.gov/site/probation/services/adult-court-faqs.page [https://perma.cc/T444-UU4B] (last visited Jan. 20, 2023); Chapter 2: Leaving the Judicial District, in Prob. & Pretrial Servs. Off., U.S. Cts., Overview of Probation and Supervised Release Conditions (2016), https://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/leaving-judicial-district-probation-supervised-release-conditions [https://perma.cc/QEC6-NLBH].
242 U.S. Cts., supra note 241.
243 See Mass. Prob. Serv., supra note 241; Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42A.154 (2017); Adult Court FAQs, NYC Probation, https://www.nyc.gov/site/probation/services/adult-court-faqs.page [https://perma.cc/T444-UU4B] (last visited Jan. 20, 2023); Chapter 2: Leaving the Judicial District (Probation and Supervised Release Conditions), United States Courts, https://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/leaving-judicial-district-probation-supervised-release-conditions [https://perma.cc/QEC6-NLBH] (last visited Jan. 20, 2023).
244 Burns v. United States, 287 U.S. 216, 220-21 (1932).
245 See id; see also David S. Cohen, Greer Donley & Rebouché, The New Abortion Battleground, 123 Columbia L. Rev. (forthcoming 2023) (manuscript at 20).
246 Bertram & Sawyer, supra note 239.
247 Id.
248 Exec. Order No. 14076, 3 C.F.R. 14076 (Jan. 1, 2023); Exec. Order No. 14079, 3 C.F.R. 14079 (Jan. 1, 2023).
249 Exec. Order No. 14076, supra note 248; The Abortion Pill, Planned Parenthood, https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/abortion/the-abortion-pill (last visited Jan. 15, 2023).
250 Mifepristone is the first of two medications typically used in a medication abortion. Facts on Mifepristone, Planned Parenthood (2019), https://www.plannedparenthood.org/uploads/filer_public/42/8a/428ab2ad-3798-4e3d-8a9f-213203f0af65/191011-the-facts-on-mifepristone-d01.pdf. [https://perma.cc/FS96-M5Y6].
251 Alliance Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA, 2023 WL 2825871 (2023). The United States Supreme Court issued a stay on April 21, 2023, allowing the abortion bill to remain widely available. The stay will last until the disposition of the appeal pending in the 5th Circuit and disposition of a timely writ of certiorari. “Should certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court.” Danco Laboratories, LLC v Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, 143 S. Ct. 1075, 1075 (2023).
252 Probation and Pretrial Services – Mission, U.S. Cts., https://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/probation-and-pretrial-services/probation-and-pretrial-services-mission (last visited Feb, 6, 2023) [https://perma.cc/DQE5-3RNJ].
253 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 142 S. Ct. 2228, 2309 (2022).
254 Incarcerated Women, supra note 14.
255 Kimport, supra note 24, at 1.
256 See Hubbard v. Taylor, 399 F. 3d 150, 167 n.23 (3d Cir. 2005) (protections for pretrial detainees greater than convicted prisoner); Campbell v. McGruder, 580 F.2d 521, 527 n.9 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (protections for pretrial detainees greater than convicted prisoner); Patten v. Nichols, 274 F.3d 829, 834 (4th Cir. 2001) (protections for pretrial detainees at least as great as convicted prisoner); Board v. Farham, 394 F.3d 469, 477 (7th Cir. 2005) (protections for pretrial detainees at least as great as convicted prisoner).