Contact: Brooke Beloso: 317-940-8629
Carolyn Meagher 317-989-3847

When: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 6:00-8:00 pm (light refreshments provided)

Where: Butler University, Pharmacy Building 156 (For directions please see: http://www.butler.edu/disability/physical-access-on-campus/campus-map/; Parking free after 5:00 p.m.)

Event registration: http://pregnancymentalhealth.eventbrite.com/

In December 2010, Bei Bei Shuai, a woman who attempted suicide while 33 weeks pregnant, was rescued and underwent early cesarean surgery in a desperate effort to save her baby. Her baby was prematurely born alive but succumbed after four days of intensive care. As a result of her suicide attempt while pregnant, Bei Bei Shuai was arrested. She now faces a trial – unprecedented in US history – for murder of a viable fetus and attempted feticide. This forum will address the psychology of suicide, myths and prejudices about suicide and mental health issues, and how as a community, we can best respond to the issue of suicide.

Speakers will address such questions as:
Why do people attempt suicide? Are pregnant women different from other people who attempt suicide? What are the life events most associated with suicide attempts?
How can those who attempt suicide be helped?
How can suicide be prevented?
How are family members and the community affected by those who have attempted or who have actually committed suicide?
Is it ever helpful to address suicide through the criminal justice system?
What laws and policies will help prevent suicide and advance understanding of mental health issues? What resources are available to individuals and families in Indiana?

Expert Speakers include:
Laura Miller, MD, MPH, Director, Women’s Mental Health Fellowship, Brigham and Women’s HealthCare, Professor of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Attending Physician, Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Dr. Miller is an expert in perinatal and postpartum psychiatry whose work focuses on integrating scientific research concerning women’s mental health with medical practice, education, and policy.

Stephen C. McCaffrey JD, President and CEO, Mental Health America Indiana. Mr. McCaffrey, a graduate of Purdue University and Indiana University School of Law in Indianapolis, has been with MHAI since 1991. He currently serves as Chair of the Indiana Division of Mental Health and Addiction Advisory Committee.

Brownsyne Tucker Edmonds, MD, MS, MPH, FACOG, Assistant Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Indiana University School of Medicine. Dr. Tucker Edmonds’ research interests are in patient-provider communication and decision- making for value-laden and preference-sensitive decisions. Her work is aimed at promoting and facilitating shared decision-making in high-risk obstetrical settings.

Co-sponsors (list in formation) include: The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; Backline; Demia (Butler University’s student chapter of the Feminist Majority Leadership Alliance); Gender, Women's, and Sexuality Studies at Butler University; Indiana Religious Coalition for Reproductive Justice (IRCRC); LRSJ (Law Students for Reproductive Justice) Bloomington; Mental Health America of Indiana; NAMI (National Alliance on Mental Illness) Indiana; National Perinatal Association (NPA); National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW)

Michelle Knight, one of the three women kidnapped, raped and imprisoned in Cleveland reported that she had repeatedly miscarried pregnancies as a result of her captor's abuse. In response, Ohio prosecutors announced that they are considering bringing aggravated murder charges against Ariel Castro for the "unlawful termination" of Knight's pregnancies. The fact that prosecutors across the country are using the same kind of fetal murder laws as the basis for arresting pregnant women themselves requires us to consider some uncomfortable questions.

What if on the day Knight was freed, she had been found to have attempted suicide while pregnant and then had miscarried? If the case had happened in Indiana, the state's murder and attempted feticide laws would be applicable to her. In Indiana, Bei Bei Shuai currently faces a trial on such charges because she attempted suicide while pregnant and suffered the loss of her newborn. What if any of the women held in the Cleveland horror house had found ways to perform self-abortions to prevent giving birth to children in those conditions? Under some states' fetal murder laws, these would be unlawful abortions that are not necessarily exempt from prosecution. Utah law specifically defines such intentional acts as murder. And what if any one of these three women had admitted that while pregnant she had used painkillers found in the house to numb the pain of her terrifying ordeal? Whether or not such drugs caused a pregnancy loss, prosecutors in dozens of states have argued, sometimes successfully, that state laws treating the death of fertilized eggs, embryos and fetuses as murder provide the basis for arresting and imprisoning such women for a decade or more.

Today, the federal government, Ohio and thirty-seven other states have feticide and murder laws that treat the death of fetuses as homicide. While many states started out passing "feticide" laws, they are now more likely to expand their existing homicide laws, redefining "persons" to include fertilized eggs, embryos and fetuses as entirely separate subjects of the crime of murder. Virtually all such laws were adopted in the wake of an assault on a pregnant woman. Some followed incidents involving negligent or drunk drivers who killed a pregnant woman. Many more followed violent attacks on pregnant women that featured brutality similar to that inflicted on Michelle Knight.

According to their proponents, these laws do not conflict with pregnant women's rights, particularly her right to choose abortion, and instead they offer protection from violence to pregnant women and their unborn children.

That's the theory. The reality is another matter.

While the violent incidents used to generate public support for these laws are very individual, the organizations that draft and lobby for them are very political. Indeed, it is clear that passing laws that treat fertilized eggs, embryos and fetuses as completely legally separate from the pregnant woman is part of a long term strategy to overturn Roe v. Wade. For example, in a 1983 piece "Restricting Abortion Through Legislation," Lynn D. Wardle, a pro-life strategist, identified enacting legislation "to extend the maximum permissible protection for the unborn" as one way that state legislatures could contribute to overturning Roe.

Once passed, these laws not only define fertilized eggs, embryos and fetuses as legal entities entirely separate from the pregnant woman, they also equate pregnancy termination with the most heinous and unforgivable of crimes: murder.

Almost all of these laws prohibit punishment for abortions, but only lawful abortions. A growing number of state laws, however, define a wide range of abortions as unlawful. In a recent Idaho case, which challenged laws that could be used to arrest a woman who ended her own pregnancy, the state Attorney General argued that all "self-abortions" are unlawful and the state may arrest pregnant women for having them. Only some states' fetal murder statutes, like Ohio's, specify that the law may not be used to punish women in relationship to their own pregnancies.

The research my colleague Jeanne Flavin and I published earlier this year in the Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law found that when pregnancy termination is equated with murder, homicide and feticide laws-including those with explicit exceptions for the pregnant woman-will be used to justify the arrests and detentions of pregnant women themselves. We identified more than 600 cases since 1973 in which a woman's pregnancy was a factor leading to her arrest, detention or being subject to a forced medical intervention. In a separate analysis in American Journal of Public Health, I found that prosecutors in at least eighteen states have used their existing murder and feticide laws as a basis for arresting and prosecuting pregnant women who had abortions, or who suffered miscarriages, stillbirths or neonatal losses.

Even when states do not charge women directly under feticide or murder laws that treat eggs, embryos and fetuses as completely separate persons, prosecutors typically cite these laws as authority for subjecting pregnant women to forced medical interventions and for interpreting generally-worded child endangerment laws, drug delivery laws and other criminal statutes as ones that may be used to arrest pregnant women themselves.

For example, in Alabama, the state Supreme Court recently held that the commonly understood meaning of the word "child" in Alabama criminal law includes fertilized eggs. The judge who wrote this opinion explained in a separate concurrence with himself that this definition of the word child was consistent with Alabama and other states' laws that recognize "unborn children as persons," including specifically, fetal-murder laws. As a result, the state's chemical endangerment of a child statute, one that was clearly passed only to punish adults who bring children to places like meth labs may be used to punish women who use any amount of any controlled substance (prescribed or unprescribed) while pregnant. So far more than 80 women have been arrested, all of them facing imprisonment on sentences that can range from 1 year and a day to 99 years.

In these kinds of cases, judges, prosecutors and arresting officers describe pregnant women in terms that make the women sound like they are the captors, forcibly holding unborn life in captivity much as Ariel Castro is accused of doing to Michelle Knight, Amanda Berry and Gina DeJesus. In Tennessee, a prosecutor described the fetus as a baby "which will be viable if born but can not escape the uterus." An Alaska prosecutor described a fetus as being "captured in the womb." A prosecutor in South Carolina defined the unborn child as a "victim" that was "in essence, held hostage by the defendant for nine months." And, an Illinois case in which state officials sought to force a woman to undergo cesarean surgery for the benefit of her fetus, the Cook County Public Guardian argued that the fetus is a "real life being kept prisoner in its mother's womb and tied to an oxygen source that is not working."

In practice, and regardless of their intent, laws equating pregnancy termination with murder are being used against pregnant women not for them.

In South Carolina, an 18-year-old pregnant woman with a history of mental health issues attempted suicide by jumping out of a building. She survived, despite major injuries, but lost the pregnancy. She was arrested and incarcerated on the charge of "homicide by child abuse." Rather than face a murder, she pleaded guilty to manslaughter. Women in Indiana and Mississippi who suffered pregnancy losses that the state claims they caused are now awaiting trials for murder.

In order to ensure that women like these are not punished but forced terminations of pregnancy are, states could pass laws that significantly increase the penalties for assaults on women who are pregnant. But proponents of feticide laws have insisted that unless laws acknowledge separately the death of fertilized eggs, embryos and fetuses, justice cannot be achieved. This is one reason why today far more states have laws that enhance penalties for assaults on and causing the death of eggs, embryos and fetuses than laws enhancing penalties for or specifically punishing assaults on or murder of pregnant women. Indeed we live in a country where more state have laws increasing the penalties for assaults on sports officials (umpires and referees) than assaults on pregnant women.

There is absolutely no evidence that prosecuting the death of fertilized eggs as murder has reduced violence against pregnant women or advanced in any way maternal, fetal or child health. In fact, equating pregnancy termination with murder is likely a contributing factor in the US epidemic of violence against women. Jeremy Blanchard, convicted of murdering his girlfriend, explained in an MSNBC interview that she deserved it because she had ended a pregnancy in which she was carrying his child.

The desire to punish Michelle Knight's captor for every violent and cruel act including causing her to miscarry is understandable. We need, however, to be very wary of the kind of murder law that may be used for this purpose in this case-but across the country is being used to punish, not protect, pregnant women.

We have one more day of Alabama’s 2013 legislative session, when it is still possible to ward off the ghastly specter of Foreign Law from being forced upon us. Colorado, that means you—stand back, with your Rocky Mountain High and your happy newly-weds. Meanwhile, our beloved state Supreme Court has brought pregnancy and childbirth back to what they think God meant it to be—drug free. No epidurals. That can work well, especially if you have a midwife or a doctor skilled in normal unmedicated birth, but do women want to give up that option? How about no spinal blocks for c-sections? Girlfriends, better practice your breathing! Obstetricians, addiction specialists and anesthesiologists, do I have your attention?

Our story begins back in 2006, when Alabama passed a Chemical Endangerment statute meant to protect children from harm in meth houses. Although it said nothing whatsoever about pregnant women and was never intended to apply to women who become pregnant while addicted or who use a drug during pregnancy, that didn’t stop prosecutors from jumping right in.

I first learned of the problem when National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW) contacted me about efforts to challenge the prosecutions of two Alabama women jailed under such misuse of the law. I decided to add my name to amici curiae briefs that explained to the court how dangerous these prosecutions are for maternal, fetal, and child health. I’m proud to be listed right there with the 47 groups and individuals who co-signed, including ACOG (The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists), the American Medical Women’s Association, the National Perinatal Association, and NOW-Alabama. Y’all know I’m a good progressive, but ACOG has never been accused of such. What gives?

I know my obstetrician friends are truly concerned about the well-being of pregnant women and babies, and I’m sure that’s part of ACOG’s reason to sign on. They must know the law puts these women in an impossible position—abort, or deliver and go to jail. Stopping drug use before delivery is often not a safe option. ACOG also had to be aware of risks to their professional membership. The law as it was originally enacted and intended by the legislature says a prescription of a controlled substance is only legally given to a child if directly prescribed for the child. If revised to include prosecution of pregnant women who take a drug, there is no exception within the statute for the many situations when physicians prescribe controlled substances to pregnant women. A controlled substance given partly to protect a fetus (such as methadone, if a woman with addiction wants to safely continue pregnancy) is not prescribed to the fetus. An epidural used during labor or a spinal block for a c-section ought to read the ruling to get the full contortionist flavor. I’ll wait while you go wash your mouth out. If you didn’t make it to the end, here it is: “We conclude that Court of Criminal Appeals correctly held that the plain meaning of the word “child” in the chemical-endangerment statute includes an unborn child or fetus. However, we expressly reject the Court of Criminal Appeals’ reasoning insofar as it limits the application of the chemical-endangerment statute to a viable unborn child

Applause came quickly on the anti-choice sites, such as this one quoting Liberty Council founder Mathew Staver: “The U.S. Supreme Court’s abortion cases are an aberration to law and stand on an island by themselves, and that island will one day disappear.” We know that is the underlying intention of these prosecutions and of the Alabama Court’s decision. What a nice bonus for them that women also get to experience pain of Biblical quality while undergoing surgery without medication!

A Senate Resolutionis in the works which would affirm the Court’s interpretation of the statute as correct. If passed, will Governor Bentley sign it? Does he understand the consequences to his physician friends?

Here’s an interesting scenario: let’s suppose a pregnant woman is pressured or forced to undergo c-section against her wishes and is given spinal anesthesia. She is royally outraged, as she should be, and requests charges pressed against the obstetrician and hospital for chemically endangering the fetus. Can the prosecutor refuse to do so?

There are two paths I can see for prosecutors to travel. They could comply with their duty to enforce the law as interpreted, in which case physicians who care for pregnant women ought to look a mite more nervous—if not sweating and trembling or packing their bags—when I pass them in the hallway. Or we could continue to see this law used selectively, for low-income women who are addicted. I can tell you that at least where I practice, no one is arresting well-off mothers taking prescribed opiates during pregnancy. Much as I’d like to, I sure haven’t seen a slow-down in c-sections either. The law is broken many times a day, without so much as a raised eyebrow. Huntsville, Alabama, living on the edge. . .

Without even a token effort to apply the law equitably, it seems to me the law is unconstitutional as applied. The state must be aware it is violating Equal Protection by not defending all fetuses, only poor ones. If so, we ought to expect at least a few arrests of women taking prescribed pain medications or methadone, and perhaps their physicians. Who will that be? Are you quite certain it won’t be you?

On April 6, 2013, more than 100 people rallied in Indianapolis, Indiana in support of Bei Bei Shuai and against separate and unequal law for pregnant women. Reported widely and well, this rally demonstrated the strength of local and state based activism and how a national organization (NAPW!) successfully supports local action without appropriating it.

In 2010 Bei Bei Shuai attempted suicide while pregnant. Although she survived, the baby she gave birth to following the attempt did not. Instead of receiving support, Ms. Shuai was arrested on charges of murder of a viable fetus and attempted feticide. If this prosecution is upheld, it would effectively create a "personhood" measure in disguise, establishing precedent for subjecting all pregnant women to a second-class status.

While NAPW continues to work in the courts and with policy makers, it is becoming more and more apparent that this is not enough. And that is exactly why activists and leaders in Indiana recognized the need for direct action in support of Bei Bei Shuai and against separate and unequal laws for pregnant women.

Student activists and professors from Butler University and Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne (IPFW), law students at the Indiana University-Bloomington Maurer School of Law and IUPUI McKinney School of Law, Indiana Religious Coalition for Reproductive Justice (IRCRC), and the team at Pence Hensel LLC are just some of the individuals and groups committed to freeing Bei Bei Shuai who worked tirelessly to make the rally a success.

While historic rallies and marches may have seemed to naturally emerge in response to outrageous state action; they didn't just "happen." In fact they came about as a result of intensive organizing, outreach, education, and inspiration. So that is what NAPW and Indiana activists set out to do through everything from producing powerful and striking posters, flyers, and pins to extensive outreach and education efforts.

The week before the rally, Laura Flanders interviewed NAPW's Executive Director, Lynn Paltrow for GRITtv about the Bei Bei Shuai case and the upcoming rally. Lynn then flew to Indiana where local advocates had organized a series of talks in Fort Wayne, Indianapolis, and Bloomington enlisting support for Bei Bei and the rally.

Momentum built as local media began announcing the talks and reporting on them. In "Advocate visits to back Shuai," the Indianapolis Star gave Bei Bei Shuai the last word: "I try to stay strong for this case," she said. "And not only for me, but for all the pregnant women." In the week leading up to the rally, NAPW, IRCRC and other local Indiana groups publicized the rally on their websites, Facebook pages, on the rally's Facebook page, on their Twitter feeds, and with the media. Local newspapers, the Indiana Lawyer (announcing that law students from the IU Maurer Law School would be attending the rally), independent news outlets, the national Associated Press (AP) wire service, and radio stations spread the word about the rally. On the morning of April 6th, IRCRC's Carolyn Meagher did a 6:00 am live interview at the rally site for WISH TV.

The effort was worth it. On the day of the rally, more than 100 people showed up, including four Law Students for Reproductive Justice Fellows (one of whom is a native Hoosier) who drove all the way from Washington D.C. This, however, was a rally primarily organized by, for, and about people in Indiana -- a vital fact given that the local prosecutor in the case had said previously that he didn't believe there was significant local opposition to the prosecution.

Rally signs identified the scores of leading medical, public health, and advocacy organizations that oppose the prosecution. Speakers at the rally included local ministers, feminists, doctors, psychologists, students, lawyers, and activists including Amy Shackelford, executive director of Central Indiana Jobs for Justice. Ms. Shackelford read a statement in support of Bei Bei Shuai from Eve Ensler -- author of the Vagina Monlouges and founder of V-Day: a global activist movement to end violence against women and girls.

Coverage of the event was about as good as it gets: including everything from AP, and the Indianapolis Star to Ecumenical News, television coverage, and numerous on-line tweets, Facebook postings, and blogs. The coverage accurately credited the local organizations and organizers that had made this event happen and reported that the participants were from all over the state of Indiana. Now the prosecutor knows that there is significant local and state-based opposition -- and it is not going away!

Nor are the more than 200 activists who attended the third annual Oklahoma Take Root: Red State Perspectives on Reproductive Justice Conference supported by NAPW, or the many, many people we know -- whether they define themselves "pro-life" or "pro-choice" -- who do not want to see pregnant women locked up, tied down, or deprived of their personhood.

Please donate to NAPW today to help us keep doing it right - supporting, amplifying, and encouraging activism everywhere for Reproductive Justice.

PS Watch NAPW's home page next week for speeches from the rally!

Contact: Robert G. Newman, MD, MPH
Phone: 212-523-8390
Email: rnewman@icaat.org

Lynn Paltrow, JD
Phone: 212-255- 9252
Email: LMP@advocatesforpregnantwomen.org


New York and Maryland, April 3, 2013 - Today, four leading experts in law, medicine, and addiction treatment, Robert G. Newman, MD, MPH, Lynn M. Paltrow, JD, Sharon Stancliff, MD, FAAFP and Mishka Terplan, MD, MPH, FACOG, Diplomate, ABAM, released to Task Force members and the public their analysis of the Final Report issued by the Florida Statewide Task Force on Prescription Drug Abuse and Newborns, urging Florida to give greater attention to existing well-established medical protocols and to address the needs of pregnant women, including the need for greater access to Medication Assistance Treatment and health services that are not linked to punitive criminal justice and unnecessary child welfare interventions.

The Florida Statewide Task Force on Prescription Drug Abuse and Newborns, created by the 2012 Florida Legislature and chaired by Attorney General Pam Bondi, was charged with "examining the scope of [Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome "NAS"] in Florida, its long-term effects and the costs associated with caring for drug exposed babies, and which drug prevention and intervention strategies work best with pregnant mothers." Their report was issued in February 2013.

While the experts commend the Task Force for its efforts, they identified numerous concerns about the report and the limitations of the information presented to and considered by the Task Force. Dr. Robert Newman, MD, MPH, Director, Baron Edmond de Rothschild Chemical Dependency Institute of Beth Israel Medical Center in New York explained, "We are very concerned that this Report -- one that will influence policy in Florida and that may be relied upon by other states -- uses language and makes findings that perpetuate misinformation about NAS, pregnant women, and opiate use." He added, "the Report contains views on treatment for pregnant women and newborns with NAS that do not reflect known, medically tested treatment protocols."

The Expert's assessment also raised concerns about:

• The conflation of drug exposed newborns with those actually diagnosed with NAS;
• Acknowledgment of, but a failure to address, key barriers to care and treatment;
• Suggested public awareness campaigns that use inaccurate and counterproductive language that stigmatizes pregnant women;
• The Task Force's membership, which did not include experts specifically in opioid dependence, or women who were or have been pregnant while opioid dependent.

The full text of this analysis is available online here. In addition, more than 40 experts recently released an open letter urging media to end to inaccurate reporting on prescription opiate use by pregnant women. That letter is available here: http://idhdp.com/media/32950/rnewmanopenexpertletter_-_3.11.13.pdf

More than two years ago Bei Bei Shuai was pregnant and, in an act of desperation, sought to kill herself. Friends intervened and got her to a hospital in time. She survived and did everything she could to ensure that her baby would too, including undergoing emergency cesarean surgery. The baby was born alive, but tragically did not survive.

Attempting suicide is not a crime in Indiana, yet the state responded to this tragic situation by arresting Ms. Shuai on charges of murder of a viable fetus and attempted feticide. According to the state of Indiana, attempted feticide may be charged whenever a pregnant woman engages in any intentional action that threatens the life of a fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus. The Supreme Court of Indiana refused to dismiss the charges against Ms. Shuai even though scores of medical, mental health, public health, and health advocacy groups explained why doing so is crucial to protecting maternal, child, and fetal health. It has been more than two years since Ms. Shuai was criminally charged. She spent a full year in jail deprived of her constitutional right to bail. She was finally granted bail and released from jail, but she is far from free -- Ms. Shaui must pay $12 a day to wear an electronic monitor.

This case affects all pregnant women -- and really all women of childbearing age. If upheld it means that Indiana will have a system of separate and unequal law for women: a new Jane Crow. For example, attempting suicide will be a crime -- but only for women who are pregnant. Every intentional action or inaction by a pregnant woman that could lead to the death of a fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus would be covered under the feticide law, relegating all pregnant women to a "special" class of persons who may be subject to surveillance, control and punishment. Declining a doctor's advice for bed rest, prenatal tests, or cesarean surgery could all be treated as attempted feticide. (Threats of arrest and actual arrests in such situations are not hypothetical.) Indeed, every fertile woman will be responsible at all times for knowing if she is pregnant so she can determine if an action or inaction might be the crime of feticide, attempted feticide, or attempted murder.

Ms. Shuai's case has garnered an outpouring of online support from around the world that has surprised even the prosecutor, as he admits in this video from the Indianapolis Star. You can help continue this momentum by supporting a rally to take place on April 6 in Indianapolis! There are 3 important ways you can support this effort:

1. Show up! Join NAPW's Executive Director, Lynn Paltrow, in Indiana on April 6th and encourage your students, friends, family, or local organization members to attend too. And then, encourage them again! Having people show up in person sends a strong message: We stand with Bei Bei! We stand for equality, justice, and freedom!


2. Spread the word! Please share this event with your networks. Visit (and share widely!) the Facebook event that tells people where and when to show up. Blog about it! Share the flyers! Send an email blast to your supporters! Sign the online petition!


3. Speak out! As NAPW's Board President, Jeanne Flavin, and Executive Director, Lynn Paltrow, explain in "Toward a "Pro Lives" Perspective that Values the Lives of Pregnant Women and the Well-Being of Our Nation," there is strong opposition across party lines and in spite of political labels to giving states the power to lock up and tie down pregnant women.

• Butler University in Indianapolis, IN on Wednesday, March 27, 2013 at 7:00 pm in Room 156 of the university's Pharmacy and Health Sciences Building for their Women's History Month lecture series;


• Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne (IPFW) in Fort Wayne, IN on Thursday, March 28, 2013 at 7:30 pm in Neff 101 for their Women's History Month lecture series;


• Indiana University's Mauer School of Law in Bloomington, IN on Friday, March 29, 2013 at 12 noon in Room 121 for an event hosted by Law Students for Reproductive Justice, the Feminist Law Forum, and the American Constitution Society.

As other contributors to this series have observed, “pro life” and “pro choice” do not adequately capture the dimensions and diversity of opinions and experiences that people have with regard to abortion and, as we will make clear, a whole lot more. Drawing upon our own observations formed during decades of gender scholarship and legal advocacy, we join others in their critique of the pro-life/pro-choice dichotomy. As part of that conversation, we offer “pro-lives” as a term that more accurately reflects the values of people on all sides of the abortion debate.

We begin by noting that while similar numbers of people identify as pro-choice and pro-life, some 43 percent of all Americans (including 51 percent of all Catholics and 59 percent of Black Protestants) identify as both pro-life and pro-choice. We also point out an extraordinary diversity of opinion and perspective regarding beliefs about the morality of abortion and the extent to which people think abortion should be restricted or Roe v. Wade overturned. Regardless of their political party, most people do not hold a hard-line position on abortion. More than two out of three Latino registered voters, for instance, agreed that “even though church leaders take a position against abortion, when it comes to the law, I believe it should remain legal.”

As many before us have recognized, the terms “pro-life” and “pro-choice” (and their relatives, the “anti-s”) fail to reflect the values and beliefs of those to whom the terms are often applied. Since the 1990s, women of color leaders have offered a comprehensive alternative vision to the pro-choice framework. The language of “choice” did not describe the experiences of racism, poverty, and other structural barriers that left many people without choices, including the choice of going to term and being able to parent with dignity. Integrating the concepts of reproductive rights, social justice and human rights, Loretta Ross and other members of Sistersong created the concept of “reproductive justice.” As Jessica Gonzalez-Rojas and Kierra Johnson recently explained, reproductive justice presents a collective vision: “a world where all people have the social, political, and economic power and resources to make healthy decisions about gender, bodies, sexuality, reproduction, and families for themselves and their communities.”

Others have also challenged the pro-choice framework and the false dichotomy between pro-life and pro-choice. For example, Exhale, an organization that offers a non-judgmental , was founded to advance a “pro-voice” framework. Regardless of their personal views about abortion, many people have abortions or know people who have. Recognizing this, Exhale works to create an environment where each person’s experience and perspective about abortion is “supported, respected, and free of stigma.” More recently, Planned Parenthood announced its decision to move away from the language of “pro-choice”. While the term “pro-choice” has been discussed and critiqued at some length, we focus here on the term “pro-life” and its limitations in discussions of abortion.

In the context of pregnant women and abortion, the “life” in pro-life is singular, that is, limited to only one life: the unborn life. It excludes the lives (plural) of the pregnant woman’s existing children, her other family members, and the life of the pregnant woman herself—even if that means she might die. The singularity of the pro-life position is particularly clear in the case of Angela Carder. In that case, the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops (USCCB) argued that court-ordered cesarean surgery on Ms. Carder was justified because the only life that mattered was that of the unborn child. The USCCB insisted the surgery was necessary to advance the rights of the unborn child even though Ms. Carder opposed the surgery and wanted interventions that might prolong her own life. The USCCB defended their position despite the fact that the forced surgery contributed to her death and the fetus was so far from viability that it was born alive but did not survive. More recently, this exclusive focus on unborn life prompted a bishop to revoke the official Catholic designation of a hospital in Phoenix, Arizona after staff there permitted the termination of a pregnancy to save the life of a mother who was experiencing an ectopic pregnancy.

In order to protect unborn life in the singular, the “pro-life” position demands public policies that treat fertilized eggs, embryos and fetuses as legal entities completely separate from the pregnant woman. Such a position requires outlawing abortion in all circumstances. As leading medical and public health organizations recognize, these pro-life policies provide the basis for undermining maternal, fetal, and child health and the lives (plural) of pregnant women, new mothers, and their families. Locking up women who have or seek to have abortions (most of whom are already mothers) not only imposes an extraordinary punishment on the woman who is incarcerated, but also on the children who are separated from her. And, as our research on hundreds of cases documents, post-Roe anti-abortion and pro-life measures have been used to justify the arrests, detentions of and forced interventions on pregnant women whether they are seeking to end a pregnancy or to continue one to term.

We are confident that many people who identify as “pro-life” are, in fact, pro-lives. These are people who care not only about unborn life in the singular, but also the lives of pregnant women, mothers, and their families and communities. In the example mentioned above, nearly three-quarters of the Catholics in the diocese sided with the Phoenix hospital’s decision to save the life of the mother.

Many people who are deeply opposed to abortion and who might be labeled “pro-life” do not want to see women with ectopic pregnancies die when Catholic hospitals deny them abortion. Similarly, they probably do not want doctors to be empowered to threaten to arrest pregnant women who disagree with their advice, as happened recently in Florida. Because many people who are “pro-life” and who oppose abortion are in fact pro-lives, they do not want women to be arrested, charged as criminals, humiliated at trial and incarcerated, including women like:

• Jennie McCormack (Idaho), geographically isolated and without childcare for the three children she already had, who safely self-induced an abortion;
• Bei Bei Shuai (Indiana) who, while pregnant, attempted suicide;
• Rennie Gibbs (Mississippi) a sixteen-year-old pregnant teen who suffered a stillbirth;
• Christine Taylor (Iowa) who fell down a flight of stairs while pregnant;
• Laura Pemberton (Florida) who was attempting a vaginal birth after one previous birth by cesarean surgery.

In contrast to the pro-life position with its almost exclusive focus on the abortion issue, a pro-lives position reflects concern for the millions of people in the United States who do not have health insurance, safe and stable housing, a living wage, or enough to eat. “Pro-lives” clearly includes those Catholics who, by a margin of nearly 2 to 1, want a greater focus on social justice and helping the poor, even if less attention is given to abortion. Most Americans (including Catholics) also agree that the economic system unfairly favors the wealthy and that one of the big problems in the U.S. is that not everyone is given an equal chance in life. Sister Pat Farrell’s recent challenge to the Church to think beyond a singular pro-fetus perspective and advocate more broadly for social justice (discussed elsewhere in this series) and the USCCB’s own stated advocacy positions (e.g., those concerning economic justice) similarly point to a pro-lives perspective.

It seems that most people, regardless of their views of abortion, want a more just society overall. In our view, this includes ensuring that pregnant women retain their right to life as well as all other rights associated with constitutional personhood. We hope that most people take strong issue, as we do, with a society that allows women to be subjected to a separate and unequal system of law that would punish them for attempting suicide, falling down a flight of stairs, or exercising their right to medical decision making.

To that end, and in the interest of advancing reproductive justice, we invite people of all political persuasions and faith traditions (and of none) to adopt, or at least consider, a “pro-lives” perspective. Such a position is consistent with the demand for reproductive and social justice. It also challenges us to embrace a true culture of life that values all life including the lives of women who give birth to and sustain that life.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

• Largely ignores almost 50 years of research showing the value of methadone and more recently buprenorphine treatment and instead stimatizes treatment known to be beneficial to pregnant women, their children and their communities;


• Ignores well-established, cost effective protocols that treat and resolve neonatal abstinence syndrome when it occurs;


• Disregards lack of training of medical personnel in addiction, addiction treatment and protocols for the effective management of newborns who experience NAS;


• Focuses blame on pregnant women and counterproductively portrays them as perpetrators of harm to their offspring;


• Consistently uses medically inaccurate terms that brand newborns as "addicted" or as victims;


• Suggests long-term harms to children that have not been shown to be associated with opiate intake - prescribed or unprescribed - during pregnancy.

This letter follows a recent U.N. Human Rights Council Report on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment harshly criticizing policies that deny drug-users long-term maintenance treatment with methadone or buprenorphine. The report notes that "A particular form of ill-treatment and possibly torture of drug users is the denial of opiate substitution treatment."

The full text of this letter is available at: http://idhdp.com/media/32950/rnewmanopenexpertletter_-_3.11.13.pdf

For more information about the Open Letter, or for interview requests please contact:
Dr. Robert Newman,
Director, The Baron Edmond de Rothschild Chemical Dependency Institute of Beth Israel Medical Center, New York, NY
Phone: 212-523-8390
E-mail: rnewman@icaat.org

CONTACT: Farah Diaz-Tello
212-255-9252 ext. 31

Tampa, Florida: Ms. Lisa Epsteen, a Florida woman who is pregnant, reached out today to National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW) for advice. According to Ms. Epsteen, she was being threatened with arrest if she did not immediately go to the hospital and submit to cesarean surgery. An email from Jerome Yankowitz, M.D., the Chair of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of South Florida, to Ms. Epsteen threatens that the providers of Tampa General Hospital and the University of South Florida may have “no choice” but “to move to the most extreme option, which is having law enforcement pick you up at your home and bring you in.”

NAPW has sent a letter to the hospital explaining that the threat of arrest lacks justification in both law and medical ethics. Farah Diaz-Tello, NAPW Staff Attorney explained, “Women do not lose their rights to medical decision making, bodily integrity and physical liberty upon becoming pregnant or at any stage of pregnancy, labor or delivery.”

Ms. Epsteen has expressed her intent to schedule cesarean surgery for later this week. Lynn Paltrow, Executive Director of NAPW stated “Any attempt to force her to undergo the surgery by means of arrest and detention in the hospital is without legal justification and in defiance of a clear medical consensus that such threats and actions undermine maternal, fetal, and child health.” Ms. Paltrow added, “Our research regarding related actions around the country (see Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law) raises serious concerns about the misuse of state authority to deprive pregnant women of their constitutional personhood and to endanger the health of women and babies.”

P.S. Jeanne would like NAPW supporters to note that she is embarrassed by the attention but loves NAPW too much to deny them their request to circulate this activist update.

Drug Policy Alliance filed Amicus Brief Challenging Random Drug Testing Program

Today, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Lebron v. Secretary, Florida Department of Children and Families, upheld a preliminary injunction that halted Florida’s law requiring drug testing of public assistance applicants as a condition of receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (“TANF”).

Florida’s drug testing law was challenged by Navy veteran, single father and University of Central Florida student Luis LeBron who applied for TANF but refused to be drug tested. His challenge led to a federal trial court order halting the law from taking effect on the grounds that it likely violated the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision.

“The 11th Circuit’s decision deals a devastating blow to any state’s attempt to impose suspicionless drug testing as a condition of receiving governmental benefits” says Daniel Abrahamson, director of Legal Affairs at the Drug Policy Alliance. “We hope that lawmakers will choose to honor the constitution rather than scapegoat poor people in efforts to address perceived drug problems.”

The Drug Policy Alliance -- together with American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry, Physicians and Lawyers for National Drug Policy, the Legal Action Center, Center for Juvenile and Criminal Justice, National Employment Law Project, Child Welfare Organizing Project, and National Advocates for Pregnant Women -- filed an amicus curiae (friend-of-the-court) brief in the case challenging the random drug testing program. The brief exposed as baseless a key assumption underlining Florida’s law - that persons in need for financial assistance are more likely to use and abuse illicit drugs than other segments of the population. The brief argued that Florida’s drug testing scheme does not achieve any of its purported goals of protecting the well-being of children, promoting the employability of person on public assistance and assuring fiscal integrity, and does not pass the “special needs” test that is required to justify otherwise unconstitutional searches by government officials.

The court found that the state of Florida “presented no empirical evidence to bolster its special needs argument that suspicionless drug testing of TANF applicants is in any way warranted.” Further it stated, “[t]here is nothing so special or immediate about the government’s interest in ensuring that TANF recipients are drug free so as to warrant suspension of the Fourth Amendment.”

The case is Lebron v. Secretary, Florida Department of Children and Families, Case No. 11-15258; http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/201115258.pdf

Contact: Theshia Naidoo 510-229-5214 or Tommy McDonald 510-229-5215

- See more at: http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/2013/02/11th-circuit-court-appeals-upholds-fourth-amendment-challenge-floridas-suspicionless-dr#sthash.tzgjmaBA.dpuf

The court agreed, stating: "On its own, the one entry [a medical notation of a positive drug test] does not tell us whether the mother is an addict or used an illegal substance on a single occasion. The notation does not reveal the severity or extent of the mother's substance abuse or, most important in light of the statute, the degree of future harm posed to the child. In other words, a [positive drug test], without more, does not establish proof of imminent danger or substantial risk of harm."

Relying heavily upon information provided in NAPW's amicus brief, the court emphasized the "the fact-sensitive nature of abuse and neglect cases," and noted that "[j]udges at the trial and appellate level cannot fill in missing information on their own or take judicial notice of harm." Instead the Division must prove its case using qualified scientific and medical evidence.

The Court concluded that the Division of Child Protection and Permanency may provide services to pregnant women who seek them, subject to "an important limitation: a pregnant woman or mother must consent to the Division providing services."

Significantly, last year, a New Jersey trial court, anticipating this decision, refused to assume that symptoms of Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome in an infant born to a pregnant woman who had followed medical advice and obtained methadone treatment constituted "harm" for purposes of New Jersey's child welfare law. In this case, the mother was represented by counsel from NAPW and the New Jersey Office of Parental Representation. The court considered testimony from two internationally renowned experts in methadone treatment and pregnant women and concluded that the newborn's symptoms were not "harm" as contemplated by the law, but rather the anticipated, treatable side effects of federally recommended, Constitutionally-protected drug treatment. The court noted that the question of whether Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome is harmful as contemplated by Title 9 (the state's civil child abuse and neglect statute) is "a subject that contemplates expert testimony."

NAPW is very proud of these significant victories. They will not, however, end efforts to use civil child welfare laws as mechanisms for controlling and punishing pregnant women, or stop child welfare departments from confusing evidence of drug use with child abuse. See for example, this recent Daily News story: WEED OUT: More than a dozen [New York] city maternity wards regularly test new moms for marijuana and other drugs. We will need your continued support to ensure that the New Jersey ruling is followed in that state and recognized as correct in all of our other 49 states!

For Immediate Release
Contact: Lynn Paltrow 212-255-9252
February 6, 2013

Today, in a major victory for New Jersey’s pregnant women and families, the New Jersey Supreme Court announced a unanimous opinion in New Jersey Division of Youth & Family Services v. A.L. recognizing that the state’s child protection laws do not give the Division of Child Protection and Permanency jurisdiction or control over pregnant women and that positive drug tests on pregnant women and newborns do not alone establish neglect. The court also acknowledgd the concerns of leading medical and public health organizations that application of child protection laws to the context of pregnancy can undermine maternal, fetal, and child health.

In this case, a mother, identified in court records as “A.L.,” gave birth to a healthy baby in September of 2007. The New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency (formerly the Division of Youth and Family Services) argued that positive drug screens for cocaine on A.L. and her newborn were sufficient evidence of harm or imminent harm to find that A.L. had neglected her child. A lower court and the Appellate Division agreed, not only finding neglect in this case but also declaring that New Jersey’s neglect law could be applied to the context of pregnancy. Today the New Jersey Supreme Court rejected these claims.

On appeal to the New Jersey Supreme Court, National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW), along with Lawrence Lustberg, Esq. of Gibbons, PC, represented a group of fifty national and international medical, public health, and child welfare organizations, experts, and advocates including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Addiction Science Research and Education Center, and the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry. Amici in this case argued that the lower courts relied on popular misconceptions about drugs, pregnant women, and child welfare that lack any foundation in evidence-based, peer-reviewed research.

Lawrence S. Lustberg, Esq. of Gibbons P.C., said, “We are so pleased that the New Jersey Supreme Court, consistent with its long tradition, carefully considered the expert amicus brief and rejected the State’s reliance on scientifically discredited, factually incorrect statements about drug use in pregnancy.” Mr. Lustberg added, “The court recognized, in effect, that drug tests cannot predict parenting ability and acknowledged Amici’s concerns that expansion of the state’s child welfare law to the context of pregnancy would be likely to disproportionately harm low income and minority communities.”
Expert amici explained to the court that medical research makes clear that numerous substances, conditions, and circumstances raise similar or greater risks to fetuses than prenatal exposure to cocaine. While amici were careful to note that they were not suggesting that prenatal exposure to criminalized drugs is benign, they emphasized that current scientific evidence simply does not support a per se finding of abuse or neglect based solely on drug tests indicating that a pregnant woman used cocaine, or any other criminalized or non-criminalized drug during pregnancy.

The court agreed, stating: “On its own, the one entry [a medical notation of a positive drug test] does not tell us whether the mother is an addict or used an illegal substance on a single occasion. The notation does not reveal the severity or extent of the mother’s substance abuse or, most important in light of the statute, the degree of future harm posed to the child. In other words, a [positive drug test], without more, does not establish proof of imminent danger or substantial risk of harm.”

Relying heavily upon information provided by amici, the court emphasized the “the fact-sensitive nature of abuse and neglect cases,” and noted that “[j]udges at the trial and appellate level cannot fill in missing information on their own or take judicial notice of harm.” Instead the Division must prove its case using qualified scientific and medical evidence.

Lynn Paltrow, Executive Director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women “It is extremely important that the New Jersey Supreme court today recognized that pregnant women, children and families should not be deprived of their fundamental rights – including the right to family relationships – based on presumptions that are medically baseless.” Ms. Paltrow noted that “The court’s decision protects the rights of all pregnant women and in so doing actually protects maternal, fetal, and child health.”
The Court concluded that the Division of Child Protection and Permanency may provide services to pregnant women who seek them, subject to “an important limitation: a pregnant woman or mother must consent to the Division providing services.”

Significantly, last year, a New Jersey trial court, anticipating this decision, refused to assume that symptoms of neonatal abstinence syndrome in an infant born to a pregnant woman who had followed medical advice and obtained methadone treatment constituted “harm” for purposes of New Jersey’s child welfare law. In this case the mother was represented by counsel from NAPW and the New Jersey Office of Parental Representation. The court considered testimony from two internationally renowned experts in methadone treatment and pregnant women and concluded that the newborns symptoms were not "harm" as contemplated by the law, but rather the anticipated, treatable side effects of federally recommended, Constitutionally-protected drug treatment. The court noted that the question of whether Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome is harmful as contemplated by Title 9, the state’s civil child abuse and neglect statute is "a subject that contemplates expert testimony."

Ms. A.L. is represented by Clara Licata of the New Jersey Office of Parental Representation.

The full decision is available here: http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/supreme/A2811DYFSvALOpinion.pdf

The amicus brief filed on behalf of medical, public health and child welfare organizations– including a full list of the amici – is available here: http://bit.ly/TstXFD


Senator Dick Black
P.O. Box 396
Richmond, Virginia 23218
804-698-7513
Email: district13@senate.virginia.gov

Dear Senator Black:

On Tuesday, January 22nd on the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, you spoke on the Virginia Senate floor and made a speech in which you equated legal abortion with the Nazi Holocaust.

I am writing to urge you to rethink your use of this rhetoric.

While your speech referred to abortion clinics, the people who have abortions at these clinics are pregnant women. The individual, private decision a pregnant woman makes to have an abortion is not the same as government sponsored genocide. Government respect for private decision-making is not the same as government authorized legal and military action against particular groups of people on the basis of religion, race, gender, creed, or sexual orientation.

Equating an individual woman’s decision regarding her reproductive health and life to the Nazi Holocaust, or to any holocaust, diminishes the significance of government-sponsored genocide and is, in fact, a form of holocaust denial. It also denigrates the humanity of pregnant women and diminishes their moral status.

Women who have abortions are overwhelmingly mothers. Sixty to seventy percent of women having abortions are already mothers. By the age of 45, eighty-five percent of all women in U.S. will have become pregnant and given birth; forty-three percent will have had an abortion. Women do eighty percent of the childcare and two-thirds of the housework. They do this work without any form of formal compensation, without guaranteed pensions, and still without any guaranteed form of insurance or healthcare.

Whatever you may have meant by your comments, I hope you will agree that pregnant woman and mothers who have had abortions are not the same as, or worse than those who carry out torture, terrorize and kill children, and commit mass murder.

By equating abortion to the Holocaust, you necessarily implicate pregnant women and mothers as individuals responsible for crimes against humanity. Rather than vilifying pregnant women and mothers in this way, I hope you will instead focus on providing them with the health care, economic, and social support they and their families need.

Sincerely yours,

Lynn M. Paltrow
Executive Director
National Advocates for Pregnant Women