As a result of the Supreme Court's refusal to review the lower court opinion:

• Bei Bei Shuai, a woman who was abandoned by the father of her baby and who suffered from depression so profound that she attempted suicide, will be subjected to the ordeal of a murder trial in which every aspect of the most unimaginably painful time in her life will be recounted in open court and twisted to cast her as a baby-killer.
• Feticide laws urged by organizations, including the National Right to Life Committee, and passed based on the promise that they would not be used to punish pregnant women will, in fact, be used to punish pregnant women.
• Every woman who suffers a miscarriage or stillbirth under circumstances any outsider considers suspicious could be subjected to a police investigation and charged with a crime.
• Every woman who engages in any action - from smoking cigarettes to insisting upon a VBAC (vaginal birth after cesarean surgery) - could be charged with attempted feticide, a law that applies to all stages of pregnancy.
• The precedent establishes that if a woman has an abortion that is deemed illegal in Indiana (with or without Roe still on the books) she could be charged with the crime of murder.

Not only do we have to refuse to go "back to the back alley," we must now also insist that "we won't go to jail."

Keep in mind that organizations and individuals who identify themselves as "pro-life" have assured the public that their efforts to re-criminalize abortion and establish the unborn as separate legal persons would not result in the prosecution and imprisonment of women who end their pregnancies. Yet, not a single such organization has opposed Ms. Shuai's arrest and incarceration.

Help NAPW expose the lies and deceit of the organizations that put feticide laws on the books with the promise that they would be used to protect pregnant women from third party attacks and now are silent as they are used to attack pregnant women.

NAPW is committed to continuing the fight for Bei Bei Shuai. Please help us.

You can start by signing this petition.

This break-through story makes clear that there is no middle ground between these sorts of prosecutions and establishing legal principles that would deprive every mother "good or bad" of her fundamental constitutional and human rights, including the right to choose abortion. In the story, Troy Newman, president of the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue admits that prosecutions of pregnant women "could ultimately get the anti-abortion movement where it wants to go."
TIME Magazine reinforces these connections in their story, Drug Addiction, 'Personhood' and the War on Women.


NAPW has long recognized that bringing pro-choice, birthing rights, criminal justice, and drug policy reform movements together could get us where we want to go - guaranteeing that all women, regardless of their circumstances, are treated like human beings and guaranteed access to respectful reproductive health and maternity care. NAPW wants to ensure that pregnant women do not become new fodder for America's massive system of incarceration.

The NYTimes story also stands out for its reliance on real experts who challenge prevailing myths about addiction and the war on drugs. To simplify a complex medical and psychosocial issue into a criminal issue is really just like using a hammer to play the piano, says Dr. Deborah Frank, a pediatrician and director of Boston Medical Center's Grow Clinic for Children.

The story has already garnered more than 600 comments on-line. We know there are compassionate people throughout the country who understand that fundamental rights should not depend on whether someone labels you "good" or "bad." Please make a donation to support NAPW's courageous work defending women and families and please March with us this Saturday, April 28th.

Continue reading our activist update...

♀ Cut out your words and glue them to poster board (should probably be around 14" x 22").

♀ Go over each glued word with tape, because the wind can wreak havoc on signs.

♀ Attach the poster board to a cardboard tube with heavy-duty tape to hold up your sign. (Avoid using sticks to hold up the signs-- police officers have taken to banning them as potential weapons, and it would be unfortunate for something so trivial to get in the way of your important message.)

♀ Staple an identical poster board to the other side so fellow marchers and cameras can see your sign from all sides.

There are grassroots efforts across the country to organize marches on April 28th against the "War on Women." One thing you could do is see if that kind of mobilization is happening in your city/state and help plan it, or at least show up for it.

When an issue comes up that you care about, you could organize a protest -- with creative signs/puppets/street theater. In smaller cities like yours it is possible to get press coverage without necessarily having a huge turn out. For example, fewer than 10 people showed up to protest Bei Bei Shuai’s imprisonment (on murder charges) in an Indianapolis County jail and it still made the news. A few hundred people in Oklahoma -- protesting a slew of anti-abortion laws there -- did a "barefoot and pregnant" demonstration that also got significant attention.

2) SPARE YOUR CHANGE
You don't have to make $100,000 to help organizations doing good work. Advocacy organizations like ours that are devoted to women's rights and trying to actually bring about change (for the better!) are least likely to get significant support from the usual sources. Small donations $5, 10, 20, 25, add up and make a difference. You could also do a house party and invite your friends to donate that much for NAPW or another organization you care about. By the way -- if you did want to do that for NAPW, we could come via "skype" and speak to people in your living room and answer questions. If you are willing to organize a fundraiser or invite NAPW to speak to your school or organization live or via Skype sometime in the upcoming year, please let us know! See also: http://www.soapboxinc.com/speakers/lynn-paltrow/

3) POLITICS LITE, CALL A LEGISLATOR
Many organizations will encourage you to focus your energy on electoral politics and lobbying people already in office. We do not believe that will ever be enough -- but it is part of the effort. Have you called your Congress member and Senator in Washington DC and in your state house? Have you called their local office? Have you asked to meet with them in person to say you are really angry about what is happening? Are you registered to vote? Do you vote? When you meet with your representative can you say I am here and I just got 5 people registered and they listen to me?

4) ONLINE ACTIVISM
There are all kinds of on-line activism available as well. Can you sign this petition for example and spread the word about Bei Bei Shuai- or stand up for women's personhood by signing this petition.
The next time you hear of bad legislation or an elected official or spokesperson equating the individual reproductive health decisions women make with government sponsored genocide -- you can email, call, and email again to say you object.

5) KNOW WHAT’S UP
You can stay informed by checking online reproductive rights news sources including: http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/ Check to see if your state’s politicians are introducing bad legislation that threatens women’s rights (e.g., fertilized eggs-as-persons bills, unborn victims of crime bills, personhood measures in disguise). You can organize learning circles with a few friends to read about grassroots activism and attacks on reproductive justice. This is a great source for example to read about reproductive justice and what the country will look like if Roe is overturned. You can Be a "Fan" of NAPW on Facebook and Follow me on Twitter.

6) BE THE EYES, EARS, AND HANDS
You can identify a need and act on it. For example -- if a "pregnancy crisis center" near you is failing to tell women about abortion services, you could make up a flyer and hand it out, outside of the center. This is just an example -- but true grassroots activism is vital and you can be part of that for the rest of your life -- no matter what else you need and love to do.

We hope you will read the article and take action: Please sign this Change.org petition demanding Ms. Shuai’s freedom.

Although she did everything she could to ensure that her baby survived, including undergoing cesarean surgery, her newborn died shortly after birth. Ms. Shuai was arrested, charged, and has been held without bail based on the claim that Indiana’s murder statute (with the death penalty or a sentence of 45 years to life) and attempted feticide statute (with a sentence of up to 20 years) may be used to punish pregnant women who cannot guarantee a healthy birth outcome.

With help from friends like you, National Advocates for Pregnant Women is doing everything we can to help defend Bei Bei Shuai and other women just like her.  Unfortunately, in spite of our efforts so far, a mid level appellate court in a 2-3 ruling refused to dismiss the charges against Ms. Shuai. This is so even though more than 80 leading medical, public health, and health advocacy organizations and experts joined amicus (friend of the court) briefs supporting Ms. Shuai. NAPW, with the Indiana firm of Pence Hensel LLP, is now seeking review in the Indiana Supreme Court. At the same time, we continue to hope that Indiana comes to its senses and simply drops the charges.

We hope that you will sign the Change.org petition  and make it your mission to get thousands of other people to do so as well. In short, the petition says: Unless it is your intention to make clear that in Indiana the “Pro-Life” position is “Pro-Life-Sentences-For Pregnant-Women” position, we urge to you drop all charges and Free Bei Bei Shuai now.

Those who support abortion re-criminalization laws, fetal-murder laws, and so-called “personhood” measures claim that only abortion providers, and not pregnant women, will be arrested. Sign the petition and let them know the truth is finally coming out. We know how long women will serve: Life.

Updates regarding the case are posted regularly @FreeBeiBei Twitter feed. You can also learn more by following NAPW on Facebook and Twitter, and by checking out the Free Bei Bei Shuai Facebook page established by grassroots activists.

NAPW’s article, Missed Opportunities in McCorvey v. Hill: The Limits of Pro-Choice Lawyering, looks at the ways in which abortion litigation has been done in the past, and could be done more effectively in the future. NAPW wanted to make sure that Jennie McCormack’s case was not another "Missed Opportunity." As a result, we worked with sister organizations Legal Voice and the Center for Reproductive Rights to file an amicus (friend of the court) brief in Ms. McCormack’s case. We felt that silence was not an option.

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first amicus brief of its kind addressing the issue of "self-abortion." It focuses, in part, on the burdens pregnant women bear and the ways in which punishing pregnant women is contrary to history, women’s dignity, the physical realities of pregnancy, and the law. Not a single abortion re-criminalization organization or leader has spoken out against Ms. McCormack's arrest.

We also wanted to let you know that if you think, real Reproductive Justice activism is limited to the coasts -- you haven’t been to Oklahoma lately! With NAPW’s support, the Take Root: Red State Perspectives on Reproductive Justice Conference was held in Norman, Oklahoma. This is the second reproductive justice conference in the State. This was a collaborative effort that would not have been possible without a committed group of Oklahoma students, faculty, and activists. Participation doubled from last year. Two hundred people (many of them students from Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas) showed up in force. They cheered, they tweeted, and they were inspired to go back to their communities and take action. Many participated in a rally held two days later in Oklahoma City opposing a so-called "personhood measure."

Feedback from the conference before, during, and after was overwhelmingly positive. Tweets from the conference included:

"Standing here waiting for Take Root conference to begin & my heart is swelling all the young people here to further a great cause."

"I'm tearing up at the fact that this discussion is happening in this wonderful place that I live"

"My little heart's burstin' with pride for my community, my state, my region, my people. Take Root was incredible. Come back next year."

And after the conference, one young woman wrote, "I'm grateful I had the opportunity to learn from such incredible speakers and to realize I'm not alone in this struggle! I look forward to attending next year."

We give a special shout out to Mallory Carlberg (pictured below) a former NAPW college intern who now attends Oklahoma University College of Law. Ms. Carlberg founded OU’s Law Students for Reproductive Justice chapter and helped organize a pre-conference talk, Pro-Life vs. Pro-Lives: What the Difference is and Why it Matters, by NAPW Executive Director, Lynn Paltrow.

Please help NAPW make sure that we can continue to support key events like these that build the reproductive justice movement and energize a new generation of activists.

NAPW was recently asked by the White Ribbon Alliance, a global movement to improve maternal and infant health outcomes through policy change and research, to serve on a multi-stakeholder working group and provide a legal analysis of a groundbreaking document they were drafting, the Respectful Maternity Care Charter. This document brings to light the many human rights treaties protecting the right of pregnant women to respectful maternity care. In November, after several months of work, the Charter was first unveiled to the group tasked with bringing its message to communities worldwide. At that meeting, I noticed more than one person puzzling over Article 7: Every woman has the right to liberty, autonomy, self-determination, and freedom from coercion.

“Liberty -- what a peculiarly American word,” noted one person. Another nodded in agreement. Is it? I wondered, searching my memory banks, Would the concept of liberty lack resonance in other countries and cultures? As a civil and human rights attorney in the United States, I may be precisely the wrong person to make that determination. Liberty, along with equality and due process of law, is one of the few tools I am given to defend the health, rights, and dignity of pregnant and parenting women.

From a historical perspective, the U.S. is a relative newcomer to the idea of liberty. Even the iconic statue that the United States so proudly displays as a tribute to liberty is a gift from the French, a depiction of Libertas, a Roman goddess of freedom. The history of liberty traces even further than that, appearing in ancient texts from Persian, Chinese, and Indian cultures. But what about the present day? The term “liberty” appears in international human rights documents, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, but does the United States have the market cornered on liberty? What does liberty look like for childbearing women in the Land of the Free?

In its most literal meaning, liberty is a freedom from bondage and restraint. Even on this most fundamental level, incarcerated women in many U.S. states are denied this right and are forced to give birth in chains and shackles. Despite a widespread recognition that a woman’s ability to move freely is important not only to her ability to cope with labor but to her health and that of her baby, only a handful of U.S. states have passed laws that ban or limit the practice. The Anti-Shackling Coalition, a group of state-based human rights activists coordinated by the Rebecca Project for Human Rights, works to challenge policies that allow such deprivation of women’s liberty and dignity with the idea that all people—regardless of whether or not they are incarcerated—are entitled to human rights.

But liberty runs much deeper. Decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States tell us that the concept means more than mere freedom from restraint. Certain rights, including the right to make decisions about one’s body and the right to start and maintain a family, are considered so “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” that “neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed.” For most Americans, it is unfathomable that women could be forced to undergo surgery or held against their will in a hospital for court-ordered bed rest, or that giving birth or suffering a poor birth outcome could lead to imprisonment or the destruction of a family. For others, it is an unfortunate reality.

As of this writing, Bei Bei Shuai, an immigrant from China, has been sitting in an Indiana jail for over 300 days. Her crime? She survived a suicide attempt but lost the baby she was expecting. She was fortunate that a friend rushed her to the hospital when she revealed that she had taken rat poison in a bout of intense depression to end her shame after being abandoned by the father of her child. Hospital staff saved her life, and even managed to stabilize her baby. But after fetal monitors showed that the baby was in distress, an emergency cesarean was performed, and it was discovered that the baby was suffering from brain hemorrhage that would certainly be fatal. Despite pain from the cesarean surgery, Ms. Shuai held her baby, whom she named Angel, for hours on end. The hospital staff, outwardly kind to Ms. Shuai as they advised her to remove life support, called the coroner’s office to report a homicide before Angel had even passed away. When Angel finally died in her mother’s arms, it was only a matter of minutes before the hospital turned Ms. Shuai’s personal and privileged medical records over to police without a warrant, subpoena, or Ms. Shuai’s consent. Even though neither suicide attempts nor pregnancy loss are crimes, and even though suicide has been recognized as the second leading cause of maternal mortality in the U.S., Bei Bei Shuai now awaits her trial for murder.

Over fifty new mothers in Alabama have been arrested and charged with the crime of “chemical endangerment” (a crime intended to punish people responsible for children for bringing them into environments contaminated with the toxic chemical byproducts of methamphetamine production) for giving birth to babies who tested positive for an illegal substance. Most of these women were reported to authorities by their maternity care providers, some of whom actually told their patients that the urine samples they had collected under the guise of prenatal care would be saved and used for the purposes of criminal reporting, contrary to the legal and ethical requirements for health care providers. There is a very important reason for the separation between provision of health care and criminal investigation and prosecution. Medical and public health experts agree: as surely as slaps and verbal abuse, the threat of criminal prosecution or loss of child custody drives women away from prenatal care and drug treatment, both of which are crucial to maternal and infant outcomes.

The right to freedom from coercion bears directly on the enjoyment of other rights highlighted by the Charter. In 2007, a New Jersey woman declined to pre-authorize a cesarean section before it became medically necessary. Unhappy with her exercise of informed refusal (Article 2 of the Charter), the hospital reported her to child protective services, tipping off proceedings which led to a termination of her parental rights. The termination was overturned by a state appellate court, but the case is still being litigated, and the family has yet to be reunited. Many people are shocked and literally disbelieving that the child welfare system has been used against women in this way, but this is merely a more overt and widely publicized example of a form of coercion many women report experiencing. While no state grants child protective authorities jurisdiction over children prior to birth, most women don’t have access to legal counsel when they are in active labor.

In spite of the deprivations of liberty that we see across the United States, the landscape is not necessarily bleak. We honor the maternity care providers and organizations who speak out on behalf of the women who give birth under less-than-ideal circumstances. Respectful maternity care is about more than surviving childbirth. It is also about more than being treated with kindness and dignity. It is about ensuring that no woman loses her liberty at any point during her pregnancy, not even during birthing. It is an idea that transcends borders.

There is a distinction between drug misuse and abuse, and medication-assisted treatment (e.g. with methadone) which for decades has been recognized as the gold standard for managing opioid dependency. Canada (and, for sure, the “other” North American nation) needs more professionals like Ron Abrahams, director of the B.C. Women's Hospital Fir Square unit in Vancouver, whom you quote: “Rather than demonizing the women and the babies, we’re normalizing the care.”

- Letter to the Editor. Robert Newman, director, Baron Edmond de Rothschild Chemical Dependency Institute of Beth Israel Medical Center, New York.

Download file

Please join NAPW in fighting personhood measures . . . in whatever guise they appear.

Your support of NAPW helped too. Your support helped fund our South-based attorney who respectfully spoke with individuals and organizations across the state so that they would have the information they needed to build opposition within their own communities, schools, churches, and neighborhoods.
Your support of NAPW made it possible for us to produce a video, explaining How Mississippi's Prop 26 Can Hurt ALL Pregnant Women. More than 15,000 people have watched this video, shared it through social networking sites, and used it as a tool in their own opposition campaigns.

The question now is: How do we build on this victory for women and families and for a newly energized and mobilized grassroots firmly planted in the state of Mississippi?

NAPW is committed to continuing to work with the new leaders, organizations, and activists that have so much to celebrate today.

We are also committed to continuing our fight for Rennie Gibbs, the Mississippi teenager charged with murder for experiencing a stillbirth. A surprising--if not inexplicable--5-4 decision from the state Supreme Court last week held that this young mother must first go through the ordeal of a homicide trial before that Court will decide if the state’s existing homicide laws may be used to punish women who cannot guarantee healthy birth outcomes.

Finally, we know this vote does not put an end to efforts to recriminalize abortion and to establish precedent that legally separates fertilized eggs, embryos, and fetuses from the pregnant women who carry and sustain them. NAPW is in it for the long haul: we will make sure that in Mississippi and throughout the United States our laws support a culture of life that includes the women who give that life.

What few - in Mississippi or beyond - anticipated was the strong grassroots opposition that has emerged against the proposition. This week, National Advocates for Pregnant Women’s newest staff attorney, Allison Korn, published a commentary in RHReality Check describing the amazing grassroots rising there.

continue reading...

Grassroots activism is also emerging in Indiana and continuing to build in Oklahoma. In Indiana, students from Butler College organized a public demonstration in support of Bei Bei Shuai outside of the Marion County jail where she has been held without bail on murder and attempted feticide charges since March. (Ms. Shuai attempted suicide while pregnant –she survived but her baby did not). Though small, this demonstration garnered a story in the Indianapolis Star and promises to be the first of many grassroots actions in support of Ms. Shuai. And, in Oklahoma, students and other state based activists, with NAPW and other support, are organizing the second regional reproductive justice conference, Take Root: Red State Perspective on Reproductive Justice, to be held in Norman, Oklahoma on Friday, February 24, 2012.

No matter what happens on November 8 in Mississippi, NAPW will continue to recognize, support, and encourage the growing grassroots Reproductive Justice activism in Southern and Midwestern states across the country. NAPW doesn’t litigate and leave. We litigate, educate, build, and honor. We hope you will join us in this effort.

NAPW’s article uses the McCorvey v. Hill case to illustrate how traditional lawyering approaches have missed critical opportunities to use attacks on Roe and other anti-abortion cases as a way to build alliances across the range of issues and movements necessary to protect the right to choose abortion, and more fundamentally the personhood of pregnant women.

In 2003, Norma McCorvey, the original “Jane Roe” in Roe v. Wade, filed a case seeking to overturn the decision in Roe. Reproductive rights advocates made a decision not to mount a response to the case, legal or otherwise. While these advocates were correct in assuming the case would eventually be thrown out by the courts, the decision not to respond to the case left anti-choice strategists free to use it as a successful short and long-term tool in its organizing and public education efforts to recriminalize abortion, to overturn Roe, and to deprive pregnant women of their status as full persons under the law.

This short article describes the history of the McCorvey case but more importantly outlines what can be done to more effectively counter abortion re-criminalization efforts and to truly advance Reproductive Justice.

Lynn Paltrow: "To add to the discussion -- I wonder what Linda Layne would say? Too often women are left totally unprepared and unsupported when they experience miscarriages. In many cases the only support or advice is to go to an emergency room when that may actually be unnecessary and unhelpful. Clearly limiting access to emergency rooms is not the answer but I urge people to read this discussion of Linda's work.

Linda Layne: "Emergency rooms are horrible places to have a miscarriage. (The first of my 5 miscarriages was in an ER). In the vast majority of cases, miscarriages are non-emergencies. ER staff will assuredly be busy with other cases that are more important in terms of being life-threatening. This is absolutely the wrong environment for women to receive the kind of care and concern they need during a loss.

What is needed is loving, hands-on, experienced care, preferably at home.

The home birth movement provides a valuable example for improving the experience of women who lose their pregnancies through miscarriage or stillbirth. (See my articles: “‘A Women’s Health Model for Pregnancy Loss’: A Call for a New Standard of Care” Feminist Studies 2006 32(3)573-600;
“Designing a Woman-Centered Health Care Approach to Pregnancy Loss: Lessons from Feminist Models of Childbirth” In Reproductive Disruptions: Gender, Technology,. Ed. Marcia Inhorn. 2007 Pp. 79-97. Oxford: Berghahn Books.)

Women need to be told BEFORE a loss occurs how frequent losses are (15-20% of all pregnancies), what it will feel like physically, what to do to be prepared for one (disposable bed liners and paper towels are helpful). I recommend a loss plan, comparable to a birth plan. Where will you be most comfortable? in bed, in the shower? What would help with the pain? Pain killers, massage, cups of tea? Who would you like to be there with you? a trained doula? best friend? What will help most with the emotional hurt? Having those you love with you? Low lights, your favorite music, a plan for commemorating your loss?

Yes, miscarriages can sometimes be dangerous. They almost always involve lots of blood, but there are simple guidelines about under what circumstances women actually need medical attention.

Yes, it is horrible that we don't have a universal health service that would give everyone wonderful care (like I am enjoying this year in the UK). But in the case of miscarriage, less is more. Medicalizing miscarriage is not in women's best interest.

Let us take these proposed cuts as an opportunity to improve the care of the nearly 1 million American women who suffer miscarriage and stillbirth each year, by giving them the social and physical care they need and deserve during these very physically painful and heartbreaking events.

...
Linda Layne, author of Motherhood Lost: A Feminist Account of Pregnancy Loss in America and co-producer with GMU-tv of eleven episodes of Motherhood Lost: Conversations. (Visiting Fellow, Centre for Family Research, Cambridge University)"

To chime in on the this topic, please follow the thread on our Facebook homepage!

Ms. Woodroof correctly observes that religious beliefs should not trump the exigent needs of children. Nor should stereotypes and preconceived notions about who makes an adequate parent trump the needs of children. Children need supportive and loving homes. Many women who provide a loving home for their children have used or been exposed to substances that harm a fetus (such as prescribed medications, alcohol, cigarettes, or environmental toxins) without coming to the attention of the state. Many women who would be able to provide a good home for their children nevertheless have them removed after a drug test which is not an indicator of parenting ability, or even addiction. Even women whose parenting ability is actually impaired by drug addiction can, with appropriate support and treatment, care for their children. One thing is certain: the state makes a poor parent, and the prognosis for children who are able to stay with their mothers through treatment is better than that of those who cycle through the foster care system until they are unceremoniously dumped out at age 18.

The truth is that the bodies of premature babies are used as pawns when they are politically expedient, and completely ignored when they are not. The specter of less-than-perfect children drives criminal prosecutions and destruction of families at the hands of the state, but, paradoxically, not social policy that would address poverty, hunger, lack of healthcare, or the staggering racial disparities in infant mortality.

Abortion is morally defensible because women are in the best position to determine whether or not they are ready to bear a child, not because it is a way for society to prevent the births of babies perceived as undesirable. The difference between eugenics and reproductive justice is recognizing that the problem that needs to be addressed is not bad mothers or damaged babies, but the inequities that lead to unwanted pregnancies and poor outcomes. Abortion should be an option, not a substitute for policies that support women and families. Implying, as Woodroof does, that drug-exposed newborns should never have been born reinforces long-disproven assumptions about these children and ignores ability of all mothers, even imperfect ones, to grow, change, and love their children.