In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Shackling Pregnant Prisoners in Labor Found to be Cruel

In other news: sky is blue and grass is green.

I worked on this issue for a while, and was delighted to see this decision. Ridiculous that it should have ever come up for debate. Anyway, sorry for the length here, but this letter isn’t posted on the website. I received it a few days ago from the National Advocates for Pregnant Women:

On Friday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit (the federal level appellate court that reviews decisions from federal district courts in North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri, Minnesota, and Arkansas) issued the long-awaited decision in Nelson v. Norris. In this case, Shawanna Nelson argued that being forced to go through the final stages of labor with both legs shackled to her hospital bed was cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the 8th Amendment to the Constitution. She argued that she should be allowed to sue the director of the prison and the guard who repeatedly re-shackled her legs to the bed. Ms. Nelson, an African-American woman, was incarcerated for non-violent offenses of credit card fraud and "hot checks."

In this historic federal court decision, the Court held that the guard was not immune from (protected from) suit because it has been clearly established by the decisions of the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts that shackling pregnant women in labor violates that 8th Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The Court suggested that the corrections officers should have known that the medical risks of shackling were "obvious" and that "the shackles interfered with Nelson’s medical care, could be an obstacle in the event of a medical emergency, and caused unnecessary suffering at a time when Nelson would have likely been physically unable to flee because of the pain she was undergoing and the powerful contractions she was experiencing as her body worked to give birth."

Ms. Nelson originally filed this case in 2004. As the case progressed through the courts, she seemed to be losing. In 2008, three judges on the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that she had no right to sue. Recognizing the harm this decision would do, her counsel reached out to national advocacy groups for help in an effort to petition the court for re-hearing. Even though NAPW does not specialize in prison issues, we are recognized for our commitment to pregnant women and our extraordinary ability to mobilize leading public health and advocacy groups. With allies at the Rebecca Project for Human Rights and the National Economic and Social Rights Initiative (NESRI), we were able to identify more than 35 organizations (see full list below) that wanted to be represented as amicus in this case. In a brief filed with the Kesten Law Firm in Arkansas, amici articulated both constitutional and international human rights arguments in support of the re-hearing and against the degrading and cruel practice of keeping pregnant women in labor in shackles. We did all this in less than a week.

This effort succeeded, garnering a decision by the court to re-hear the case en banc (with full court review). In any year, fewer than 100 cases in the entire federal system are granted rehearing with en banc review. This was a strong initial indication that our brief had made a difference. Not only that, but at oral argument one of the judges specifically referred to our brief, asking: "Based on the amicus submission filed in support of the petition for rehearing, wasn’t Arkansas an outlier in the world’s community in terms of treatment of pregnant prisoners?" Our answer is yes, and the Court of Appeals decision this Friday agreed.

That this decision is "historic," and that five of the eleven circuit court judges dissented, makes clear both how far we have come and how far we still have to go to ensure the civil and human rights of all pregnant women (the dissent in Friday’s opinion saw no "clearly established" constitutional violations in shackling Ms. Nelson during labor.)

Congratulations to Ms. Nelson, her counsel, and all of the groups who sought reproductive justice and won in this case!


3 thoughts on Shackling Pregnant Prisoners in Labor Found to be Cruel

  1. 5 out of the 11 judges thought that, contrary to the records and precedent, that shackling a pregnant woman in labor doesn’t constitute cruel and unusual?

    Are those judges stuck in the 10 century?

    I’ll prob. have more to say after I read the court opinions, if I can find them.

    Ghods, 5-to-6 is too close.

Comments are currently closed.