We are very grateful to Jessica Simkovic, our video producer, who is pregnant, due in the Spring, and fully aware that Roe v. Wade protects her rights to personhood at all stages of her pregnancy!

Therefore, according to EVERY historical rendition depicting Santa's reindeer, EVERY single one of them, from Rudolph to Blitzen, had to be a female. And probably pregnant.

Best Wishes to All for the New Year!

Lynn and the Staff of NAPW

Notice that this law is directed to “conduct” that “creates a substantial danger of death or serious physical injury.” Many people in positions of power think that a pregnant woman who refuses cesarean surgery, have births outside of hospital settings, or insists on a vaginal birth after previous cesarean surgery is creating a “substantial danger of death or serious physical injury” to an unborn child.

The Commonwealth wants the Kentucky Supreme Court to interpret this law, and, in fact, every criminal law in the state, to include pregnant women in relationship to the fetuses they carry. Indeed, a close reading of the lower court’s opinion and the Commonwealth’s arguments makes clear that they hope, through this court case, to pass what would, in effect, be a “personhood measure.” As a result, even abortions necessary to protect a woman’s life or health could be charged as homicide.

Because of the broad implications of this case and the medical misinformation it relies on, sixty public health and advocacy organizations as well as numerous experts signed on to amicus (friend of the court) briefs explaining why the court should reject the Commonwealth’s invitation to radically re-write state law. Not a single organization filed an amicus brief supporting this kind of dangerous judicial activism. Kentucky treatment and recovery advocates Michael Barry and Pam Scott published an op-ed in the Courier-Journal explaining why Arresting pregnant women is bad for babies. Here is what they have to say:

On Dec. 10, 2009, the Kentucky Supreme court will consider a case involving a woman who gave birth and got arrested. In this case the Commonwealth claims that because a cocaine-using pregnant woman went to term, she should be punished for the crime of “wanton endangerment” for threatening the health of her “unborn” child. Two other women were recently arrested on similar grounds. Here are five surprising reasons why arresting pregnant drug-using women is a bad idea:

Threatening pregnant women with arrest is bad for babies. Babies have the best birth outcomes when their mothers are not afraid to come in for health care, not afraid to talk honestly to their health care providers, and when they can find the right kind of help for their problems. This explains why threatening pregnant women with arrest and prosecution is bad for babies. While using drugs, smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol, and many other things can create risks, the good news is women who get health care during pregnancy, whether or not they can overcome an addiction, can have healthy babies. Women who are afraid that getting health care will lead to arrest often stop coming in for health care, or if they go, keep their drug problems secret. This is one reason why every medical group in the country to address the issue, including the March of Dimes and the American Academy of Pediatrics, oppose prosecution of pregnant women.

Threatening arrests and prosecutions create an incentive for women to have abortions. Given how hard it is for most people to overcome an addiction problem quickly (even strong and successful people like Rush Limbaugh) laws that threaten to punish women who carry their pregnancies to term in spite of a drug problem puts pressure on them to get unwanted abortions. In North Dakota, a woman was arrested on charges similar to those in Kentucky. She was twelve weeks pregnant at the time and managed to obtain an abortion. The result? The prosecutor dropped the criminal charges citing the fact that she had “terminated her pregnancy.” Indeed, if the Kentucky Supreme Court uses the current case to permit prosecution of women who “endanger” their unborn children, we might as well post signs saying: “If you are pregnant and can't achieve abstinence immediately, have an abortion now, before you get arrested.”

Education, health care, and support work. For years Kentucky has led the country in applying proven methods for helping drug using women. Since Kentucky adopted laws supporting education and treatment over arrest, it has seen a dramatic increase in the number of women receiving prenatal care. In 1990, Kentucky was ranked 26th out of 50 states for prenatal care. In 2000, Kentucky improved its rank to 11th. Infant mortality rates fell 25 percent during that decade and in 2001, Kentucky reported the lowest infant mortality rate since statistics were first recorded. In contrast, South Carolina, the only state that has upheld the prosecution of women who go to term in spite of a drug problem, ranks near the bottom of the list on infant mortality.

Women who use drugs while pregnant are not doing so because they don't care about their babies. The truth is lots of people use drugs — legal and illegal. Some become addicted and just like people who struggle with obesity and hypertension, most would like to change their behaviors, but find that they can't do so immediately or without the right kind of help. Kentucky does have some specialized programs for women — but not yet nearly enough. Threatening arrest doesn't help them or their babies. And the good news is that we have much less to fear than we thought if recovery is not immediate.

What the medical research says about cocaine use and pregnancy is very different from what most people have heard on the news. Scientific experts as well as leading government agencies now confirm that the use of cocaine is not uniquely or inevitably harmful. The National Institute for Drug Abuse has reported that while babies born to mothers who used cocaine while pregnant “were at one time written off by many as a lost generation... It was later found that this was a gross exaggeration.” And, as the U.S. Sentencing Commission concluded, “[t]he negative effects of prenatal cocaine exposure are significantly less severe than previously believed” and those negative effects “do not differ from the effects of prenatal exposure to other drugs, both legal and illegal.” While health experts do not say that there are no health risks associated with cocaine use during pregnancy, the good news is that they overwhelmingly agree that the risks are comparable to cigarettes and less than the possible harm from excessive alcohol use. Exaggerated claims of harm from illegal drugs should not provide the cover for drastically changing Kentucky law, to permit treating pregnant women who do any of these things as criminals.

MIKE BARRY, CEO, People Advocating Recovery

PAM SCOTT, Director, The Healing Place for Women, Louisville 40203

Recently, NAPW chose to work on behalf of R.G. -- an African American teenager from Mississippi who became pregnant when she was fifteen. She suffered a stillbirth one month after turning sixteen. What was the state's response? They arrested her and charged her with murder.

NAPW learned about the case shortly before R.G. was scheduled to go on trial as an adult. We learned that her mother's efforts to obtain help from other organizations had been rebuffed. NAPW reached out to her local counsel and offered our assistance.

NAPW knows that, like the people in the movie Precious, the people who reported R.G. and arrested her -- the people who assumed that the criminal laws could legitimately be applied to her -- judged her. They could not see beyond the color of her skin, or the fact that she was pregnant at age 15 or that she was a "drug-user." Every woman we have represented, every woman we have worked on behalf of (African-American, White, Latina, Native American) has been, to some extent, written off like Precious, whose dark skin, overweight body, and pregnancy was all that most people could see.

But NAPW sees something different. We see past the drug war and anti-abortion rhetoric. We see beyond the racism and the politics of blame. We know that each of the women we work to help is a precious human being who deserves NAPW's support. These are women whose capacity for love, learning, giving, growing and healing never comes as a surprise to us. See the movie Precious and you will have some idea of what I mean.

The cases we work on also have huge legal implications - potentially setting devastating precedent that could be used to punish abortion and stillbirths as murder and pregnant women as child abusers. These cases could dramatically intensify the war on drugs, extending it to women's wombs and drastically expanding the scope of the criminal justice system to include all pregnant women.

Last week, NAPW worked with committed Mississippi defense lawyers Carrie A. Jourdan and Robert B. McDuff to file a motion to dismiss the charges against R.G. We told our allies and experts in the field about the case. Attorneys at the Drug Policy Alliance and the Southern Poverty Law Center's Mississippi Youth Justice Project filed an amicus brief on behalf of numerous local and national health and advocacy organizations explaining that the prosecution of R.G. is not supported as a matter of science, is inappropriate as a matter of public health, and is unfounded as a matter of law.

Contributions to NAPW helps us represent and support precious women. For this work, for the privilege of doing this work, I am thankful.

NAPW and co-sponsors hoped this contest would encourage a new generation of legal scholars to address birthing issues as proper subjects of academic research and legal action. We are proud to announce the winners of this cutting-edge contest:

Second Prize: Elizabeth Kukura, New York University School of Law, Choice in Birth: Preserving Access to VBAC (Pending publication, Penn State Law Review Winter 2009 Issue.)

Third Prize: Paul Christopher Torio, Santa Clara University School of Law Nature Versus Suture: Why VBAC Should Still Be in Vogue

Honorable Mention: L. Indra Lusero, University of Denver, Sturm College of Law Challenging Hospital VBAC Bans Through Tort Liability: Reasonableness and the Limits of Informed Consent

We were very pleased by the quality of the responses that we received, particularly considering that this is likely to be the first time that many law students have considered birthing issues as civil and human rights issues.

We have the rare pleasure of knowing that the Contest is already having the desired influence on feminist jurisprudence and advocacy in the field. In addition to the publication of at least two of the papers, UDC Clarke School of Law student Lisa Pratt recently presented a paper inspired by the contest at Perinatal, symposium on birth practices and reproductive rights. Her paper, which proposes civil rights legislation protecting pregnant women’s informed consent and decision-making in childbirth, was an inspiring call to action for the birth activists and legal experts assembled.

Because we believe that the issue of women’s rights during labor is critical to the study of gender and the law, we are sponsoring another contest this year on birthing rights. This will continue our outreach to law students and our efforts to encourage emerging legal scholars to push for the inclusion of birthing issues in the discussion of feminist jurisprudence.

Congratulations to the contest winners, and good luck to the 2009-2010 contestants!

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. The ACLU Prison Project became counsel in the case and NAPW was asked to write an amicus – friend of the court brief. Although 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. (Several additional groups wanted to join but were unable to respond in the very short time frame for filing.)

In a brief filed with the Kester 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!

This victory makes clear that with persistence we can win. Please consider donating so that NAPW can continue our creative and successful advocacy efforts.

Amici on behalf of Shawanna Nelson:
National Perinatal Association
American College of Nurse Midwives
American Medical Women's Association
Citizens for Midwifery
Birthnet Inc.
The Bronx Health Link Inc.
California National Organization for Women
Center for Reproductive Rights
Chicago Legal Advocacy for Incarcerated Mothers
The D.C. Prisoners' Project of the Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs
Florida Institutional Legal Services Inc.
Justice Now
Law Students for Reproductive Justice
Legal Momentum
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
Lutheran Services of Illinois Connections Program
Maternal and Child Health Access
The Ms. Foundation for Women
National Juvenile Justice Network
National Women's Health Network
National Women's Law Center
National Women's Prison Project
The New Mexico Women's Justice Project
The Northwest Women's Law Center
The National Organization for Women Foundation
Penal Reform International
Prison Legal News
Prisoners' Legal Services of New York
The Rebecca Project for Human Rights
SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Health Collective
Southwest Women's Law Center
Texas Jail Project
The Uptown People's Law Center
WORTH(Women on the Rise Telling Her Story)

But whether or not it is hate speech, and whether or not it can be linked directly to the murder of Dr. Tiller and other abortion providers, it is language that reveals a frightening degree of anger, disrespect for and hostility not only to the people who perform abortions but also to those who have abortions -- pregnant women.

Who are the millions of "murderous" women who have abortions? Sixty-one percent of women having abortions are already mothers. By the age of 45, 84% of all women in U.S. will have become pregnant and given birth and 43% will have had an abortion.

In other words, the women who have abortions are overwhelmingly mothers.

So we need to ask -- do the people who use this language really think the mothers who have had abortions are the same as, or worse than, those who carry out torture, kill children, and commit mass-murder? This question applies to TV personalities like Bill O'Reilly, to mainstream organizations like the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops and to peaceful picketers like those who protested President Obama when he gave the commencement speech at Notre Dame.

NAPW believes that the pregnant women who have abortions, who suffer miscarriages, who give birth, who raise children, and who love their families deserve better.

It is time for all those who care about pregnant women and mothers -- whatever their views on abortion -- to write, call, and, demonstrate against individuals, organizations, and institutions that use this language. It is time to explain why you think it is wrong to equate pregnant women and mothers with Hitler. Here are some things you can do:

Regardless of your point of view about abortion, it is time to ask your spiritual, religious, and political leaders to give a sermon or speech explaining the difference between the personal decisions women and their families make and government sponsored genocide. While some women do feel that an abortion ends a life, or at least a potential life, they know that their individual and very private decisions and circumstances are not the same as decisions to carry out state-sponsored genocide. Government protection of private decision-making is not the same as government authorized military action against particular groups of people. Implying that the decisions individual women make to have abortions is the same or worse than genocide is a form of holocaust denying and it should stop.

Regardless of your point of view about abortion, it is time to ask your spiritual, religious, and political leaders to explain the difference between pregnancy and slavery. People can oppose abortion without equating pregnant women to slave holders and their personal decisions with the institution of slavery. Claiming that the individual decisions of pregnant women and their families is like or worse than slavery denies the history, the meaning, and the lessons that must be learned from America's participation in the African Slave Trade and its history of state-sponsored slavery.

Students, especially, can use the resources offered by Spiritual Youth for Reproductive Freedom to counter the elaborate and well-funded college campus programs arguing that the collective actions of pregnant women and mother are worse than any genocide.

Tell your story. The anti-abortion movement has created the illusion that there are two kinds of women: those who have abortions and those who have babies. The truth is that the vast majority of women who have abortions are already or will someday also be mothers. You can make it hard to label mothers murderers, by showing that the women who are accused of creating a "culture of death" are giving birth and doing the caretaking that is at the core of a true culture of life. If you have had an abortion and given birth, experienced a miscarriage or stillbirth, adopted or raised a child -- tell your story with a picture, a sign, a 1 minute or less video and we will post it at advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/mystory.

At his Notre Dame commencement President Obama asked, "How does each of us remain firm in our principles, and fight for what we consider right, without demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side?"

One way to do this is to share NAPW's video and its message: People can oppose abortion without equating pregnant women and mothers, and the people who support them, with mass-murderers and baby killers.

In our video we give four examples of cases in which fetal rights arguments (the kind that would become law if so-called Personhood Measures passed) were used to hurt pregnant women who had no intention of ending their pregnancies. In two of the cases, pregnant women (Laura Pemberton and Angela Carder) were forced to undergo cesarean surgery - denying them the right to liberty, bodily integrity, medical decision making - and in Ms. Carder's case, life itself. In another case, a court granted the order for forced cesarean surgery, but the pregnant woman, Amber Marlowe, and her husband John fled the hospital before the order could be enforced. In the fourth one, a woman was arrested for homicide because the state claimed her refusal of cesarean surgery two weeks earlier was what caused one of her twins to be stillborn.

ALL denies that these cases had anything to do with fetal personhood. Instead, they point to fear of hospital liability, "complex" medical ethics, a misinterpretation of Roe v. Wade, and suggest that pregnant women who are "terminally" ill or seek to go to term in spite of a drug problem, in effect, deserve what they get.

To the extent ALL does acknowledge that fetal personhood arguments, in fact, had something to do with forcing pregnant women to undergo unnecessary surgery they suggest that this has occurred under two circumstances: 1) when a hospital had reason to fear a potential law suit and 2) when the court order was somehow consistent with the pregnant woman's desire to give her baby "the best chance of survival." ALL then suggests that these two scenarios are both reasonable and remote. In fact, most hospitals (where 99% of women in this country give birth) fear lawsuits, and women going to term generally desire to give their babies the best chance of survival.

Women who oppose unnecessary cesarean surgery often explain that they are doing so because they "want to give their babies the best chance of survival." What the cases we discuss and many others make clear is that if Personhood Measures pass, courts will be empowered to privilege the opinions of hospitals and doctors who say that surgery will give the baby "the best chance of survival" over the informed judgment of the pregnant woman who has concluded that unnecessary surgery will do the opposite.

Although current law does not in fact permit courts or prosecutors to substitute their judgment for that of pregnant women, Personhood measures would change that. These measures would permit courts, as a routine matter to appoint lawyers for the unborn, to force pregnant women and their families to participate in emergency court hearings, and then to decide for them what is best for the baby. In spite of the resounding defeat of Colorado's state constitutional Personhood Amendment in 2008, PersonhoodUSA announced that it would be re-introducing the measure in 2010 in Colorado and other states.

NAPW responds to each of ALL's points in our piece, American Life League: Anti-Abortion "Personhood" Measures Really Will Hurt ALL Pregnant Women. We appreciate the opportunity to demonstrate with even greater detail why it is that organizations committed to advancing a true culture of life, one that values the women who give that life, would join us in opposing Anti-Abortion Personhood Measures.

Here are some things that you can do about it:

Regardless of your point of view about abortion, you can ask your spiritual, religious, and political leaders to give a sermon or speech explaining the difference between the personal decisions women and their families make and government sponsored genocide. While some women do feel that an abortion ends a life, or at least a potential life, they know that their individual and very private decisions and circumstances are not the same as decisions to carry out state-sponsored genocide. Government protection of private decision-making is not the same as government authorized military action against particular groups of people. Implying that the decisions individual women make to have abortions is the same or worse than a holocaust denying and it should stop.

Regardless of your point of view about abortion, you can ask your spiritual, religious, and political leaders to explain the difference between pregnancy and slavery. People can oppose abortion without equating pregnant women to slave holders and their personal decisions with the institution of slavery. Claiming that the individual decisions of pregnant women and their families is like or worse than slavery denies the history, the meaning, and the lessons that must be learned from America’s participation in the African Slave Trade and its history of state-sponsored slavery.

Students, especially, can use the resources offered by Spiritual Youth for Reproductive Freedom to counter the elaborate and well-funded college campus programs arguing that the collective actions of pregnant women and mother are worse than any genocide. SYRF has a Student Organizing Kit to Challenge Anti-Choice Hate Exhibits on Campus available at: http://www.syrf.org/c/document_library/get_file?folderId=12&name=DLFE-102.pdf

Tell your story. The anti-abortion movement has created the illusion that there are two kinds of women: those who have abortions and those who have babies. The truth is that the vast majority of women who have abortions are already or will someday also be mothers. You can make it hard to label mothers murderers, by showing that the women who are accused of creating a “culture of death” are giving birth and doing the caretaking that is at the core of a true culture of life. If you have had an abortion and given birth experienced a miscarriage or stillbirth, adopted or raised a child - tell your story with a picture, a sign, a 1 minute or less video and we will post it at advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/mystory

Support National Advocates for Pregnant Women and share our video and its message: People can oppose abortion without equating pregnant women and mothers, and the people who support them, with mass-murderers and baby killers. Pregnant women and mothers deserve better!

During the Dinkins’ administration, new programs that kept women and children together and that proved cost effective and successful were created. When Mayor Guilliani took office, however, he promptly cut City funding for the programs. A 1996 story about the cuts was entitled “A Casulty of Deficit: Center for Addicts,” In talks I gave, I talked about the fact that the real title of the story should have been "A Casulty of Politics and Prejudice."

These programs recognized that many people with drug problems still loved and cared for their children and that addressing the woman's and the family's real needs could help them to reduce the harms of their drug use, recover and stay together. Studies of these programs found that they were very effective both in terms of cost and in terms of family preservation.

I learned only recently that one of the champions of these programs was Evelyn Castro, loving wife of Mike Arsham, the Exectuive Director of the Child Welfare Organizing Project Ms. Castro passed away last week.

As her obituary in the New York NonProfit Press explained: Castro became a pioneer in developing treatment programs for drug-addicted mothers of young children, directing one of New York City's first Family Rehabilitation Programs for LUCHA, Inc., located in Taino Towers in East Harlem, during the worst years of the crack epidemic. Her programs became models for this type of service, and she was able to replicate them, working first with Victim Services, then with SCAN-New York in the Bronx, where she served for many years as Associate Director for Preventive Services.

NAPW has, without realizing it, relied extensively on Evelyn Castro's compassion, vision and work. Whenever people asked --but what can be done if we don't punish these women? Her life's work was the answer.

In lieu of flowers, her family asks that people please make donations to SCAN-New York, 345 East 102nd Street-3rd Floor, New York, NY 10029.

Last week, a mid-level court of appeals in NJ avoided deciding the question of whether or not a pregnant woman's decision-making during labor and childbirth may be the basis for a finding, under state civil child welfare laws, of abuse and neglect. While the decision is a victory of sorts, it nevertheless reveals how extraordinarily unsettled and contested pregnant women's rights are.

National Advocates for Pregnant Women learned about the case shortly before the mid level court of appeals was to hear the case. With attorneys Lawrence S. Lustberg and Jenny-Brooke Condon of Gibbons, P.C., and attorney Susan Jenkins, we filed an amicus brief on behalf of 20 organizational and individual experts in the fields of maternal/health health and child welfare. The amicus brief brought to the Court's attention research regarding the risks of unnecessary cesarean surgery, the legal and ethical impropriety of seeking to coerce pregnant women into consenting to unnecessary procedures, the dangers to both maternal and fetal health of threatening pregnant women with child welfare interventions, and the legal precedent that makes clear that states may not consider a woman's refusal to consent to cesarean-surgery in the context of child welfare laws.

The majority opinion concluded that the court did not have to address the question of whether or not refusing to consent to cesarean-surgery could be a basis for finding civil child abuse because "there was substantial additional evidence of abuse and neglect that supported the ultimate findings" as to the mother but not the father of the child.

A concurring opinion by one of the three judges, however, expressly addressed the issue of women's moral and constitutional authority to maintain their human rights during pregnancy, concluding that "decisions. . . made with regard to prenatal treatment and surgery cannot form the basis of a finding of abuse and neglect." The judge further explains that, "The decision to undergo an invasive procedure such as a c-section belongs uniquely to the prospective mother after consultation with her physicians. To allow such a decision to factor into potential charges of abuse or neglect requires a prospective mother to subjugate her personal decision to a governmental agency's statutory interpretation... ".

The amicus is specifically mentioned in the concurring opinion and all of the amicus are listed.

We are relieved that the decision does not validate the notion that a woman's exercise of her fundamental constitutional right to make health decision during labor can provide the basis for a finding of child abuse or neglect. The opinion, in other words, is consistent with a recognition of the fact that women do not lose their civil and human rights at any stage of pregnancy. Moreover the decision did acknowledge a critical fact in public discussions about the extraordinary overuse of cesarean surgery in the US today - that medical claims that cesarean surgery is "necessary to avoid imminent danger to the fetus" often turn out to be wrong.

We are, however, very disappointed that the Court upheld the finding of abuse and neglect against the mother based on "additional evidence." In fact, the "additional" evidence is inextricably linked to the hospital's attempt to coerce Ms. M. into giving consent for unnecessary cesarean surgery and other interventions during labor and delivery. The decision repeatedly indicates that child welfare workers and hospital staff are presumed to be credible witnesses with significant expertise, while pregnant women's decision-making is effectively dismissed as uninformed or irrational. Moreover, as with many other child welfare interventions, an initial report to child welfare authorities that has no foundation too often becomes the excuse for massive invasions of family privacy, giving child welfare authorities license, in effect, to fish for any information that might be used to justify their intervention in the first place.

We expect that Ms. M. will appeal the finding of neglect and we will be there to support her. Ms. M is also appealing the companion decision terminating her parental rights. We are seeking permission to file an amicus in that case as well.

In the meantime, focusing on the positive language in the concurring opinion will help discourage other hospital and child welfare personnel from attempting to misuse the child welfare system in support of bad maternity care practices.

On June 22, 2009 National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW) released to the public a letter with more than 100 signatories sent to the Judiciary Committee of the United States Senate requesting that the Committee ask Judge Sonia Sotomayor and all future Supreme Court nominees: Is there a point in pregnancy when you believe women lose their civil rights? This letter, discussed in Rachel Roth's RhRealityCheck Commentary, addresses the harm that will result if abortion is outlawed and provides concrete examples of civil rights violations against pregnant women that undermine both maternal and fetal health and that would occur routinely if Roe v. Wade were overturned.

"Review of both civil and criminal cases since Roe v. Wade makes clear that what is at stake in each nomination to the Supreme Court is not only the right to choose abortion," said Lynn M. Paltrow, Founder and Executive Director of NAPW, "but also the fundamental issue of whether or not pregnant women are recognized as full Constitutional persons under the law."

The letter was co-signed by more than 100 legal and public health experts and advocates concerned with both abortion and birthing rights. The signatories include scholars who have revealed the ways that anti-abortion claims of fetal rights are being used to justify policing and punishment of pregnant women who want to carry their pregnancies to term. Among the signers are Dorothy Roberts (Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction and the Meaning of Liberty); Laura Gomez (Misconceiving Mothers: Legislators, Prosecutors, and the Politics of Prenatal Drug Exposure); Lisa Ikemoto (Furthering the Inquiry: Race, Class, and Culture in the Forced Medical Treatment of Pregnant Women); April Cherry (The Free Exercise Rights of Pregnant Women Who Refuse Medical Treatment); Michelle Oberman (Women, Fetuses, Physicians and the State: Pegnancy and Medical Ethics in the 21st Century); Cynthia Daniels (At Women's Expense: State Power and the Politics of Fetal Rights); Jeanne Flavin (Our Bodies, Our Crimes: The Policing of Women's Reproduction in America); and Rachel Roth (Making Women Pay: The Hidden Costs of Fetal Rights).

"Women's constitutional right to reproductive autonomy includes far more than the right to terminate a pregnancy," said Nancy Ehrenreich, editor of The Reproductive Rights Reader: Law, Medicine and the Construction of Motherhood. "Focusing the confirmation hearings on the issue of abortion ignores the fact that the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe, and more broadly its role as ultimate interpreter of the constitution, are both essential to assuring women their basic rights to human dignity and equality."

You can read the letter here.

The confirmation hearings for Judge Sotomayor will begin July 13. More information is available online at the Senate Judiciary Committee website.

This morning, National Advocates for Pregnant Women and Center for HIV Law and Policy, and Elizabeth Frankel and Valerie Wright of the Maine law firm Verrill Dana, LLP, filed an emergency amicus (friend-of-the-court) brief on behalf of 28 public health experts, advocates, and organizations challenging the imprisonment of an HIV positive pregnant woman in order to protect her “innocent” “unborn child.”

Ms. T, a 28 year-old woman from Cameroon, was arrested in January 2009 for allegedly having false immigration documents. Shortly after her arrest, she learned she was both pregnant and HIV positive. On May 14, 2009, instead of sentencing her to “time served,” which was consistent with the federal sentencing guidelines and the recommendations of her attorney and the United States Attorney’s Office, United States District Court Judge John Woodcock extended Ms. T’s sentence to 238 days, making clear that the sentence was calculated specifically to ensure that she remained incarcerated for the duration of her pregnancy. See Judge Jails Pregnant Woman Until Baby is Born and Behind Bars for Being Pregnant and HIV-Positive.

As is often the situation in cases involving pregnant women, Courts feel pressed to make decisions without benefit of full briefing, input from experts or amicus participation. Indeed, uncertain of Ms. T’s due date and how long he would need to extend the sentence to ensure she was imprisoned through her due date, the Judge looked out over the courtroom and said “So maybe we ought to consult with the women here. Any sense of what a safe range would be?”

The Amicus brief filed this morning provided the Court with the expert information unavailable at the sentencing hearings. The brief outlines legal problems with depriving pregnant women of their liberty in order to advance alleged state interests in fetal health and the public health problems with assuming that jails and prisons provide superior or even adequate health care. As an expert declaration filed by Dr. Robert L. Cohen stated: “Based upon my thirty years of experience in the delivery, administration, research, evaluation, and monitoring of medical care in jails and prisons throughout the United States, it is my opinion that it is very often the case that the medical care available to prisoners falls well below that available to non-prisoners.”

Ms. T is being represented by Zachary L. Heiden of the Maine ACLU.

NAPW and Center for HIV Law and Policy are grateful to Laura McTighe, Director of Project UNSHACKLE, Community HIV/AIDS Mobilization Project (CHAMP), for her extraordinary help in this effort and the numerous public health experts, advocates, and organizations appearing as amici on this brief, including:

National Women’s Health Network, National Association of People with AIDS, Frannie Peabody Center, Mardge H. Cohen, M.D., Howard Minkoff, M.D., ACT UP Philadelphia, African Services Committee, AIDS Foundation of Chicago, Alliance of AIDS Services – Carolina, American Medical Students Association, Black Women’s Health Imperative, Chicago Women’s AIDS Project, Circle of Care, Community HIV/AIDS Mobilization Project, HIV Law Project, Immigrant Legal Advocacy Project, Liberty Research Group, National AIDS Fund, National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health, Rebecca Project for Human Rights, Twin States Network, Women Organized to Respond to Life-Threatening Disease (WORLD), Women Rising Project, Women Together for Change Project, Jeff Berry, Wendy Chavkin, M.D., MPH, Leslie Gise, M.D., and Sean Strub.

We are pleased to report that the Court granted bail this morning, allowing Ms. T’s release pending appeal in the case. See Jail time cut for pregnant illegal alien and In Search of Justice: Bail Granted for HIV+ Pregnant Woman.

Barely two weeks ago, when President Obama gave the commencement address at Notre Dame he said, 'As citizens of a vibrant and varied democracy, how do we engage in vigorous debate? How does each of us remain firm in our principles, and fight for what we consider right, without demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side?'

Upon Dr. Tiller's death, Randall Terry, the founder of the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue who led protests against Tiller's clinic in 1991, issued a statement saying in part, 'I am more concerned that the Obama Administration will use Tiller's killing to intimidate pro-lifers into surrendering our most effective rhetoric and actions.' This rhetoric includes describing Dr. Tiller as 'a mass-murderer' and abortion as a kind of 'slaughter.' It also includes describing Dr. Tiller, as Bill O'Reilly did, as 'guilty of Nazi stuff.'

This rhetoric of 'mass murder' and 'slaughter,' killing and genocide, all commonly used by a variety of religious and political organizations that oppose abortion, is language that is demonizing and dangerous. Is this really how we think of women who have abortions, some lucky enough to do so with the support of caring doctors? Do we really believe that pregnant women who end their pregnancies and the health care providers who help them are no different from Hitler or Pol Pot? Do we really think that the individual decisions of pregnant women are the same as, or as claimed by some groups, worse than, government-sponsored genocide?

One of the amazing things about Dr. Tiller, in addition to his determination and his extraordinary courage, was the fact that he knew and appreciated who his patients were. He knew them as loving women, daughters, and mothers who are the backbone of their families and, to a large extent, our country.

Many of the women who traveled to Dr. Tiller's clinic were not women who wanted to have abortions, or who even support the right to choose to have an abortion. Many were women with wanted pregnancies who learned that their baby had no brain, or kidneys growing on the outside of their bodies or things their doctors described to them as 'severe fetal cardiac malformations.' They were women who could not face two or three more months of pregnancy with people patting their bellies and saying, 'Oh honey you must be excited. When are you due?' Some women deal with such crises by continuing to term even knowing the baby cannot survive. Others find that their dignity depends on being able to end the pregnancy.

Some women who went to his clinic were extremely young. Some who went struggled with health problems and disabilities that they felt would be exacerbated by a pregnancy they did not recognize until late. All together they represented women with the least desired and rarest abortions, ones late in pregnancy.

Dr. Tiller was extraordinary. When I met him he talked about why women have abortions and how they understand them in terms of their religious faith and spirituality. He described his efforts to serve them with respect, making possible rituals that would allow them to say goodbye to fetal life that they in fact valued.

Some women who returned from his clinic actually felt that they had been treated better through an abortion they wished they had not needed, than through a birth that they had anticipated with joy.

Today and the days that follow there will be some who will explicitly or subtly endorse Dr. Tiller's murder as a matter of necessity, justified to stop what they will claim is worse killing.

I am tired of a public debate that treats seriously the claim that pregnant women, mothers, and the people who support them are killers. I am tired of a debate that trivializes genocide by saying that what women do to deal with their reproductive lives is worse.

What I want instead is to honor George Tiller, a man who honored women. And I want instead to honor those who value fetal life, but who do not lose sight of the women who give that life, and who would never dream of murdering a doctor who was among the few to give those women the services, respect, and dignity they deserved.

The USCCB says that its political positions are based on the belief that “all human life is sacred." They cite this quotation from Archbishop John Roach, as the expression of their guiding vision: "We are committed to full legal recognition of the right to life of the unborn child, and will not rest in our efforts until society respects the inherent worth and dignity of every member of the human race." Yet an examination of the USCCB’s public positions in two high profile legal cases, described in a chart NAPW developed, raises a key question: Does the USCCB believe that all human life – except that of pregnant women -- is sacred?