Author: Valentine Hallard, MA & MSc
February 27, 2025
![[Image credit: Dina Rudick/Boston Globe/Getty Image]](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/e28a6b_a97f082d13054a69b04520b08eece674~mv2.png/v1/fill/w_49,h_37,al_c,q_85,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01,blur_2,enc_avif,quality_auto/e28a6b_a97f082d13054a69b04520b08eece674~mv2.png)
“I knew when you went to jail you gave up some rights, but the rights over your own body?” (Roth, 2012).
The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world, with a reported 4% of the world population, and approximately 20% of the world's prison population. Since 1980, the number of incarcerated women has increased by more than 700%, with around 190,600 women held in state and federal prisons or jails today (Carson, 2018; Kajstura & Sawyer, 2024). As incarceration rates for women rise, so does the number of individuals who are pregnant or give birth while in prison, with an estimated 4% to 5% of those incarcerated reporting being pregnant at the time of their imprisonment (Pregnant Women, 2024).[1] Therefore, this article will examine the unique challenges faced by pregnant individuals and mothers within the prison system.
Research and legal cases have shown that the reproductive rights of incarcerated people are denied every day, with numerous jails and prisons providing substandard, inadequate, or even harmful prenatal and postpartum care (Cavanagh et al., 2022; Daniel, 2019; Ferszt & Clarke, 2012; Sufrin, 2019, 2020; Kelsey et al., 2017). Pregnant individuals in correctional facilities face abuses such as little or denied access to prenatal care, poor nutrition, and inadequate medical supervision. Beyond medical neglect, many expectant prisoners lack essential social and emotional support that is necessary throughout pregnancy. Labor and childbirth conditions in prisons can be particularly inhumane and traumatizing, with many incarcerated individuals forced to give birth while shackled. They also experience inadequate postpartum care, alongside the trauma of being separated from their newborns after birth (Friedman et al., 2020). These experiences have lifelong consequences, affecting the physical health and mental well-being of both incarcerated mothers and their children (Sufrin et al., 2019; Kirubarajan et al., 2022).
Despite the existence of international, federal, and state laws intended to protect reproductive rights, mistreatment during pregnancy, labor, delivery, and the postpartum period remains far too common. The persistent gap between legal protections and correctional facilities' standard of care reflects systemic failures beyond healthcare access. These issues fall within the framework of reproductive justice, which not only demands access to reproductive healthcare but also upholds the right to make autonomous decisions about one's body, pregnancy, and family life. The persistent negligence regarding the protection of reproductive rights highlights inequalities in the US prison system. Addressing these injustices requires improving policies and enforcing existing legal protections alongside rethinking the correctional system so that the dignity, autonomy, and the fundamental rights of pregnant individuals and mothers are recognized.
International and National Legal Framework
Reproductive rights are fundamental human rights that enable individuals to make autonomous decisions about reproduction. These rights include the ability to choose if and when to have a child, the conditions under which to give birth, and access to options for preventing or terminating a pregnancy (Ross, 2006). The international human rights framework establishes global standards for protecting reproductive rights and highlights the need for essential healthcare, including prenatal care, contraception, and abortion.
Treaties such as the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) recognize reproductive rights as fundamental human rights. Additionally, some international treaties specifically address the rights of incarcerated women. For example, the United Nations (UN) Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women Offenders (Bangkok Rules) provide clear guidelines on the humane treatment of incarcerated pregnant individuals, access to healthcare, and alternatives to incarceration for pregnant women and mothers of young children. However, these treaties are not legally enforceable in the US legal system unless incorporated into a domestic legal framework (Mulligan, 2023). For example, the US has not ratified CEDAW, limiting its direct legal impact.
Despite this, international treaties remain a crucial tool for legal arguments, policymaking, and advocacy efforts to improve conditions for incarcerated women. For example, legal professionals may reference international frameworks when arguing cases involving imprisoned women, particularly when challenging practices like shackling during childbirth or the denial of prenatal care. The global framework can also influence state and federal legislation that applies to incarcerated women. For example, the UN Bangkok Rules recommend prohibiting shackling during pregnancy and childbirth—a principle that has influenced the First Step Act (2018), which banned shackling in federal prisons.
Legal protections in the United States for incarcerated individuals depend on constitutional rights, federal laws, and state policies. Since the Supreme Court case Estelle v. Gamble (1976), all US prisons and jails are constitutionally required to provide adequate medical care to incarcerated people (Prison Journalism Project, n.d.). In this case, the Supreme Court held that "deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners" constitutes a violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment (Thomas v. Corbett, 2014). However, the Court did not establish mandatory standards for what healthcare services must be provided, nor did it set requirements to ensure a minimum level of healthcare services or a designated agency to oversee medical care in prisons or jails (Rold, 2008).
Despite guidelines established by organizations–such as the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG), the American Correctional Association (ACA), and the National Commission on Correctional Health Care (NCCHC)—no legal requirements ensure that correctional facilities adhere to standards of care for pregnant individuals and mothers, including essential services such as prenatal and obstetric care, postpartum support, breastfeeding assistance, and mental health care. These lack of requirements gives states significant discretion in establishing prenatal and postpartum care policies, resulting in substantial variation in the availability and quality of care across different jurisdictions.
In 2008, the Bureau of Justice Statistics report by Maruschak found that only 54% of pregnant women in state prisons received any form of pregnancy care. A 2010 report from the Rebecca Project for Human Rights and the National Women's Law Center found that 38 state prisons had inadequate or no policies to ensure proper prenatal care for incarcerated individuals (Rebecca Project, 2010). More recently, a study revealed that 12 state prison systems lacked any prenatal care policy, while 24 states had no arrangements for transporting pregnant individuals to a hospital if they went into labor while in custody (Daniel, 2019).
The Right to Have or Not to Have Children
Many jails and prisons undermine the fundamental rights of incarcerated people to make decisions about their reproductive lives, including their right to choose whether to have children. These institutions often restrict access to essential healthcare, such as contraception and abortion, and engage in practices that violate reproductive autonomy and bodily integrity, such as forced sterilization. Between 2006 and 2010, over 100 unlawful sterilizations were performed on women in California prisons (Johnson, 2013). As recently as 2017, a county sheriff and judge in Tennessee were incentivizing sterilization for both incarcerated men and women by offering a 30-day sentence reduction in exchange for agreeing to the procedure (Dwyer, 2017).
Before the Supreme Court's 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, incarcerated individuals had the constitutional right to access abortion services across all states. However, even before Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, significant barriers prevented incarcerated individuals from fully realizing this right (Kasdan, 2009). Despite the national abortion rate of 18%, only 1% of pregnancies in prisons end in abortion (Sufrin et al., 2019). Prisons may overtly restrict access to abortion by requiring individuals to cover the costs of the procedure or transportation, obtain court orders, or navigate complex bureaucratic processes (Sufrin et al., 2021). Additional barriers, such as misinformation about facility policies, lack of counseling, and staff's anti-abortion sentiments, exacerbate these challenges (Sufrin, 2023).
Systemic barriers often lead to delays or even prevent access to abortion entirely, forcing individuals to carry pregnancies against their will (Kasdan, 2009; Sufrin, 2019; Roth, 2017). Access to contraception during incarceration presents similar challenges. While many women want to use contraception while incarcerated, only a small number of correctional facilities provide access to these services (Sufrin et al., 2009; Quant & Want, 2021). The lack of access to both abortion and contraception in carceral settings contributes to a woman’s inability to exercise control over her reproductive health.
Pregnancy and Birth Experiences Behind Bars
Extensive evidence reveals that the treatment of incarcerated individuals during pregnancy, labor, delivery, and postpartum is insufficient, degrading, and, at times, dehumanizing (Cavanagh et al., 2022; Daniel, 2019; Ferszt & Clarke, 2012; Kelsey et al., 2017; Sufrin, 2020).
One of the most alarming practices is the shackling of pregnant individuals during labor and delivery. Shackling involves the use of mechanical devices—such as handcuffs, ankle cuffs, belly chains, or soft restraints—that limit incarcerated women's movement (Ferszt et al., 2018).
The practice of shackling is intended to prevent incarcerated women from escaping or from harming others. However, most incarcerated women are not violent offenders, and there have been no reported escape attempts among those not restrained during childbirth (Clarke & Simon, 2013). The shackling during labor and postpartum recovery endangers both the mother and baby by restricting movement, delaying medical interventions, and increasing the risk of complications (ACOG, 2021). Beyond physical risks, shackling during childbirth can cause profound emotional distress, feelings of humiliation, and trauma.
A testimony by an incarcerated woman describes her horrific experience in the following statement:
“When they shackled me, I had two handcuffs, one was on my wrist and the other one was attached to the bed…My leg and my arm were attached to the bed so there was no way for me to move and to try and deal with the labor pains. And the metal, cause when you're swollen, it would just cut into your skin… Even when I had to get an epidural, they didn't take the shackles and the handcuffs off. I just had to bend over and just pray that I could stay in that position while they were putting that needle in my back through the whole procedure. Not once did he [the correctional officer] try and loosen them. And the doctor asked him, you know, 'Can't you take them off of her? She can't go nowhere. She can't walk. She's not goin' nowhere.' 'It's procedure and policy. Can't do it'” (Clarke & Simon, 2013).
Medical, human rights, and legal organizations strongly oppose the shackling of pregnant women in prison, considering it a cruel and degrading practice and a potential violation of constitutional and international human rights protections.[2] The practice of shackling violates standards, outlined in the United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women Offenders (Bangkok Rules). Moreover, the shackling of pregnant women during childbirth is increasingly recognized as a violation of US law. Also, shackling pregnant women during childbirth violates US constitutional principles, such as protection from cruel and unusual punishment. Several states, such as California, New York, and Illinois, have enacted laws or policies banning shackling during childbirth. However, despite federal and state laws, shackling remains a common practice for incarcerated women during childbirth (Sufrin et al., 2019). This ongoing practice highlights a gap between legal protections and actual practices in many correctional facilities.
A large body of research indicates that postpartum care for incarcerated women is often inadequate (Cavanagh et al., 2022; Sufrin et al., 2020, Kramer et al., 2023; ACOG, 2021; Kuhlik & Sufrin, 2020). Some women are returned to prison within 24 hours of giving birth without proper medical attention or support for recovery, others report not receiving checkups or necessary care after a cesarean delivery. Additionally, the routine practice of separating incarcerated mothers from their newborns immediately after birth has severe negative consequences for both the mother and the child (Chambers, 2009). This separation disrupts crucial bonding time, denies the opportunity to breastfeed, and significantly increases the risk of postpartum depression and trauma for the mother. Many women describe experiencing emotional distress and feelings of loss and emptiness following the separation from their newborns.
“I was bawling. Sobbing. I was saying, 'Why are you taking my baby? That's my baby'… [It felt] as I [was] missing a part of me.” (Kirubarajan et al., 2022)
Prisons as Sites of Reproductive Injustice
The exponential increase in the US prison population since the late 1970s is not the result of increasing crime but the direct consequence of policies such as the "war on drugs," which implemented harsher drug sentencing laws and expanded the use of incarceration to address low-level drug use and trafficking (Dumont et al., 2013). These measures have had a particularly profound effect on women, especially women of color.
Despite similar rates of drug use and sales across racial groups, African Americans and Latinos are incarcerated at significantly higher rates than Whites. African Americans and Latinos make up 29% of the US population but account for 57% of the US prison population. African Americans are 5.9 times more likely, and Hispanics are 3.1 times more likely to be incarcerated than their White counterparts (United Nations 2018). These racial disparities are driven by systemic inequities—such as poverty, racism, unstable housing, histories of trauma and violence, untreated addiction and mental health conditions, and limited educational and employment opportunities—which disproportionately place women of color in contact with the criminal justice system (Sufrin et al., 2015; Kuhlik & Sufrin, 2020).
“There is no autonomy [in prison]. Your body is in effect' property of state.”
- Misty Rojo (Roth & Ainsworth, 2020).
Prisons are areas where reproductive rights and choices are restricted. Control over women and their reproductive lives can manifest through forced pregnancy by denying access to abortion, enforced non-parenting by sterilization, termination of parental rights, and separation from children. Reproductive control is also demonstrated by the inadequate and often harmful prenatal and maternal care provided within correctional facilities. The confinement of individuals during their childbearing years severely limits their fundamental right to have children because it restricts their ability to make free, consensual decisions about conception, pregnancy, and childrearing. Incarcerated individuals are unable to exercise the same level of autonomy as those in society, as their ability to form intimate relationships, decide when or if to have children, or raise children in a supportive environment is hindered by the conditions of imprisonment (Kuhlik & Sufrin, 2020).
These practices are not just about individual experiences but reflect broader structural inequalities and systemic efforts to exert control over the bodies and reproductive capacity of the most vulnerable and historically marginalized populations. Women of color, in particular, have long faced reproductive control and oppression. During slavery, enslaved women were forced to reproduce in order to increase the slave population. They also faced frequent separations from their children, as their offspring were often sold or taken away without consent. As Davis notes, "slave women were birth mothers or genetic mothers… but they possessed no legal rights as mothers of any kind" (Davis, 2010, p.448).
In the early 20th century, the state actively sought to restrict maternal choices through policies influenced by the eugenics movement, which aimed to "improve" the genetic makeup of the population by controlling reproduction within marginalized groups. This eugenic ideology, coupled with dominant racist beliefs, categorized certain groups as "unfit" to parent. Poor women, women of color, and incarcerated individuals were frequent targets for forced sterilization.
The experience of pregnancy and motherhood in prison is part of a broader continuum of reproductive injustice that extends beyond prison walls. It highlights how intersecting systems of oppression—based on race, ethnicity, ability, class, gender, sexuality, age, religion, and immigration status—affect individuals' ability to exercise control over their bodies and reproductive lives. It also shows how social and political institutions—such as Child Welfare System, Family Court, Juvenile Justice System, Prison, and Criminal Justice System—have the authority to determine who has the right to parent and under what conditions (Kuhlik & Sufrin, 2020).
The Way Forward
The significant rise in female incarceration highlights the urgent need to reform correctional policies and practices to meet the specific reproductive healthcare needs of incarcerated individuals and their children. To achieve the these goals, it is essential to develop policies that prioritize (a) identifying pregnant women, (b) ensuring adequate prenatal care, nutrition, and activity levels for pregnant incarcerated women, (c) eliminating the use of restraints on incarcerated women during pregnancy, labor, and delivery, and the postpartum period; and (d) facilitating opportunities for mother-infant bonding and attachment during and after the postpartum period, including supporting breastfeeding and child visitation (Shlafer et al., 2019).
In recent years, several states have enacted reforms to improve reproductive healthcare for incarcerated individuals, focusing on access to essential medical care, banning inhumane practices, and ensuring dignity within correctional facilities (Rebecca Project, 2010). Some states have implemented anti-shackling laws, while others have passed legislation requiring comprehensive prenatal care, including regular checkups, nutrition, and access to prenatal vitamins. Some states have now mandated that incarcerated pregnant individuals give birth in hospitals or medical facilities rather than in a carceral setting. While these legislative advancements mark significant progress, additional efforts are needed to expand these protections nationwide and ensure consistent and effective implementation across all states.
Beyond policy reforms, various initiatives have been developed to improve the conditions of pregnant individuals and mothers in prisons and jails. These efforts acknowledge their unique medical, psychological, and social needs and aim to create a more human, supportive, and medically appropriate environment.
One approach to promoting reproductive justice among incarcerated pregnant women is the use of Doula support during pregnancy and childbirth. The Doula program, which provides the education and training to become a Doula in several correctional facilities across the United States, has shown promising health outcomes and maternal satisfaction (Kotlar et al., 2015). For example, the Minnesota Prison Doula Project uses the services of Doulas to provide group-based and individual education and support for new mothers in prison (Shlafer et al., 2014). This initiative aims to promote healthy mother-and-child relationships and increase parenting confidence. Participants expressed high satisfaction with the program, and data indicated positive birth outcomes, such as low rates of cesarean deliveries and few preterm or low-birth-weight infants.
Another key initiative supported by advocates is prison nursery programs, which provide housing and support for pregnant and postpartum women and their children. These programs are available to women who have not been convicted of violent crimes or have a history of child abuse. Their goal is to foster strong mother-child attachment and offer mothers professional, educational, and parenting support. Nine states currently operate prison nursery programs. Research from Nebraska's program (2013) found that these initiatives strengthened the mother-child bond and improved mothers' self-esteem and confidence (Carlson, 2018). Despite these positive outcomes, prison nursery programs face significant challenges, including lack of funding and institutional resistance.
From an abolitionist perspective, addressing reproductive injustices involves more than reforming the carceral system; it requires confronting the broader systems of inequality that uphold them. Abolitionist scholars and activists—including Angela Y. Davis, Ruth Wilson Gilmore, Mariame Kaba, and others—argue that modern prisons are less about rehabilitation or justice and more about maintaining social control, particularly over marginalized communities such as people of color, the poor, and other oppressed groups.
According to Davis (2010), modern prisons are an extension of slavery, perpetuating systems of racial and economic oppression through mass incarceration, by which the state exercises violence to sustain a discriminatory, racist, and capitalist social order. To tackle the root causes of these inequalities, it is essential to dismantle the racist structures that sustain mass incarceration and address the structural issues that lead to crime, such as poverty, lack of education, unemployment, systemic racism, and inadequate mental health and addiction support. Abolitionists also advocate for the decriminalization of behaviors linked to these inequalities, including drug use, sex work, and homelessness. This approach challenges the idea that incarceration is necessary for maintaining public safety and instead calls for alternative models that promote restorative justice and equitable, community-centered solutions.
The experiences of pregnancy and motherhood in prison reveal the broader societal dynamics of reproductive control in the United States, where race, class, and gender intersect to shape to restrict reproductive choices. These systemic injustices highlight the urgent need for reform, not only within the criminal justice system but also in the way society views and addresses reproductive healthcare and the rights of incarcerated individuals; this would contribute to a more equitable and just approach to reproductive rights, where women are supported in their roles as mothers rather than punished for them.
Glossary
Abolitionist (perspective): a viewpoint that opposes and seeks to dismantle oppressive systems or practices, such as slavery or the prison industrial complex, advocating for justice, equality, and the liberation of marginalized groups. This perspective often emphasizes systemic change and challenges existing power structures.
(Anti-abortion) sentiments: feelings, emotions, or attitudes that oppose the practice of abortion, often expressed in words or action.
Bodily autonomy and integrity: bodily autonomy refers to an individual’s right to have control over their own body and make decisions about it without external coercion, interference, or violence. Bodily integrity emphasizes the right of every individual to have their body remain free from harm, violation, or unwanted interference.
Bureaucratic: system of administration characterized by rigid procedures, rules, and hierarchical structures, often associated with large organizations or government institutions.
Capitalist (social order): a societal structure in which economic activities are primarily driven by private ownership, competition, and the pursuit of profit. In this system, wealth and resources are distributed based on market forces, often leading to class divisions between those who own the means of production and those who provide labor.
Carceral (settings): environments such as prisons, jails, or other institutions where individuals are detained or incarcerated as part of the criminal justice system.
Cesarean delivery: a surgical procedure in which a baby is delivered through an incision made in the mother's abdomen and uterus.
Childrearing: the process of raising and educating children, including providing emotional, physical, and social guidance, as well as meeting their basic needs for development and well-being.
Contraception: use of methods or devices to prevent pregnancy.
Correctional facilities: institutions, such as prisons or jails, where individuals are confined as a form of legal punishment or rehabilitation after being convicted of a crime or while awaiting trial.
Court orders: legally binding directives issued by a judge or a court that require an individual, organization, or government entity to take specific actions or refrain from certain activities.
Dehumanizing: treating someone as less than human, often by denying them dignity, rights, or respect, which can lead to feelings of worthlessness or alienation.
Degrading: something that lowers a person's dignity or self-worth, often through humiliation, disrespect, or mistreatment.
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization: a landmark 2022 U.S. Supreme Court case that overturned Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), effectively ending federal constitutional protection for abortion rights.
Doula: a trained professional who provides physical, emotional, and informational support to a person before, during, and after childbirth.
Eugenics movement: a movement that aimed to improve the genetic quality of the human population through selective breeding and the prevention of reproduction by individuals considered to have undesirable traits.
Exacerbate: make a situation, problem, or condition worse or more severe.
Exponential: something that increases or grows at a rapid rate over a specific period of time.
Human rights violation: an act that infringes upon the basic rights and freedoms that every individual is entitled to, regardless of their nationality, ethnicity, gender, or other status.
Ideology: a system of beliefs, values, or ideas that guide individuals or groups, often influencing their actions, behaviors, and interpretations of the world, particularly in political, social, or cultural contexts.
Incarceration: the state of being confined in a prison or other detention facility as a legal punishment for a crime or while awaiting trial.
Incentivizing: encouraging or motivating someone to take a particular action by offering rewards or benefits.
International standards: guidelines or rules established by international organizations, treaties, or agreements that are meant to be followed by countries or institutions to ensure consistency, safety, and fairness across borders.
Intersecting systems of oppression: the ways in which various forms of social inequality and discrimination are interconnected and often affect individuals in complex and overlapping ways.
Jail: a facility where individuals are held in custody, typically for short periods. It is usually operated by local authorities, such as a city or county.
Jurisdictions: official power or authority of a legal body to make and enforce laws, as well as the geographic area or subject matter over which this authority applies.
Low-level drug use and trafficking: the use, possession, or distribution of small amounts of illegal drugs or substances, often for personal use or at a smaller scale, as opposed to large-scale drug dealing or trafficking.
Mandatory standards: rules, regulations, or guidelines established by governing bodies, institutions, or organizations that are legally or institutionally required to be followed.
Marginalized: individuals or groups who are pushed to the edges of society, often experiencing discrimination, exclusion, or lack of access to resources, opportunities, and rights.
Mass incarceration: the extensive imprisonment of large numbers of individuals, particularly in the United States, where incarceration rates have soared over the past several decades.
Misinformation: dissemination of incorrect or misleading information, often unintentionally, that can influence people's understanding or beliefs about a particular topic.
Negligence: the failure to exercise reasonable care, resulting in harm or damage to others.
Perpetuating: causing something to continue or endure over time, often by reinforcing or sustaining certain behaviors, conditions, or beliefs.
Postpartum depression: a severe form of depression that occurs in the weeks or months following childbirth, marked by intense feelings of sadness, hopelessness, and exhaustion.
Prenatal and postpartum care: prenatal care refers to the healthcare and support provided to a pregnant person during pregnancy to ensure the health and well-being of both the individual and the developing fetus. Postpartum care refers to the healthcare and support provided to a person after childbirth, typically focusing on the first six weeks (but sometimes longer).
Obstetric care: medical care provided to pregnant individuals before, during, and after childbirth to ensure the health and well-being of both the parent and baby.
Oppression: systemic and prolonged mistreatment or injustice imposed on individuals or groups, often based on characteristics such as race, gender, class, or identity, leading to the denial of rights, opportunities, or freedom.
Racial disparities: differences in outcomes or access to resources between racial groups, often in areas such as education, healthcare, income, or criminal justice, which are typically the result of systemic inequality and discrimination.
Rehabilitation: the process of helping individuals recover, improve, or re-enter society after an illness, injury, addiction, or criminal behavior through various therapeutic, educational, or social programs.
Reproductive choice and autonomy: the ability and right of individuals to make autonomous decisions about their reproductive lives, including whether, when, and how to have children.
Reproductive justice: a framework that extends beyond individual reproductive rights to address the social, economic, and political conditions that influence a person’s ability to make decisions about their reproductive health and lives.
Reproductive rights: the legal and ethical rights of individuals to make decisions about their reproductive health and lives, free from discrimination, coercion, or violence.
Restorative justice: a process that seeks to address the underlying causes of harm by bringing together those affected to collaboratively find solutions, promote understanding, and rebuild relationships, rather than relying solely on punitive measures.
Shackling: the practice of restraining a person's movement using physical restraints.
Social and political institutions: established systems and structures within society that govern and organize people's behaviors, relationships, and interactions.
State and federal prisons: state prisons are operated by state governments and hold individuals convicted of violating state laws, while federal prisons house individuals who have been convicted of federal crimes, they are operated under the jurisdiction of a federal government.
Sterilization: a medical procedure that permanently prevents an individual from being able to reproduce. It is commonly performed as a surgical intervention and is considered a form of birth control.
Structural and systemic inequalities: structural inequalities refer to the ways in which societal structures—such as education, healthcare, housing, and the criminal justice system—are organized in ways that disproportionately disadvantage certain groups. Systemic inequalities refer to inequalities that are sustained by policies, practices, and norms within institutions (such as government, corporations, or the legal system) that favor one group over others.
Systemic barriers: obstacles built into systems, organizations, or society that make it harder for certain groups of people to access opportunities or resources.
Testimony: sharing experiences, feelings, or insights about a particular event or situation.
Roe v. Wade: a landmark 1973 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that established a constitutional right to abortion under the Fourteenth Amendment's right to privacy.
Footnotes
[1] In this article, I use the term “pregnant individual” to acknowledge the diversity of gender of people who may be pregnant or parenting. However, I refer to “women” or “female” when citing previous studies that specifically use these terms.
[2] These organizations include the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and the United Nations
Sources
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (2021). Reproductive health care for incarcerated pregnant, postpartum, and nonpregnant individuals. Committee Opinion No. 830. http://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000004429
Carson, A., (2018). Prisoners in 2016. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/prisoners-2016
Carlson, J. R. (2018). Prison Nurseries: A Way to Reduce Recidivism. The Prison Journal, 98(6), 760-775. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885518812694
Cavanagh, A., Shamsheri, T., Shen, K., Gaber, J., Liauw, J., Vanstone, M., & Kouyoumdjian, F. (2022). Lived experiences of pregnancy and prison through a reproductive justice lens: A qualitative meta-synthesis. Social Science & Medicine, 307, 115179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115179
Chambers, A. N. (2009). Impact of forced separation policy on incarcerated postpartum mothers. Policy, Politics, & Nursing Practice, 10(3), 204–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/1527154409351592
Clarke, J. G., & Simon, R. E. (2013). Shackling and separation: Motherhood in prison. Virtual Mentor, 15(9), 779–785. https://doi.org/10.1001/virtualmentor.2013.15.9.pfor2-1309
Daniel, R. (2019). Prisons neglect pregnant women in their healthcare policies. Prison Policy Initiative. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2019/12/05/pregnancy/
Davis, A. (2003). Are prisons obsolete? New York, NY: Seven Stories Press.
Dumont, D.M., Allen, S.A., Brockmann, B.W., Alexander, N.E., & Rich, J.D. (2013). Incarceration, Community Health, and Racial Disparities. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved 24(1), 78-88. https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/hpu.2013.0000.
Dwyer, C. (2017). Judge promises reduced jail time if Tennessee inmates get vasectomies. NPR. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/07/21/538598008/judge-promises-reduced-jail-time-if-tennessee-inmates-get-vasectomies
Ferszt, G., & Clarke, J. G., (2012). Health care of pregnant women in U.S. state prisons. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 23(2), 557–569. https://doi.org/10.1353/hpu.2012.0048
Ferszt, G., Palmer, M., & McGrane, C. (2018). Where does your state stand on shackling of pregnant incarcerated women? Nursing for Women's Health, 22(1), 17–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nwh.2017.12.005
Friedman, S. H., Kaempf, A., & Kauffman, S. (2020). The realities of pregnancy and mothering while incarcerated. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33906198/
Indiana University Public Policy Institute, Center for Health and Justice Research. (2023). Effects of maternal incarceration on child health. Retrieved from https://policyinstitute.iu.edu/doc/maternal-incarceration-brief-2023.pdf
Johnson, C. G. (2013). Female inmates sterilized in California prisons without approval. Reveal. https://revealnews.org/article/female-inmates-sterilized-in-california-prisons-without-approval/
Kajstura, A. and Sawyer, W. (2024). Women's mass incarceration: The whole pie 2024. Prison Policy Initiative. Retrieved from https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2024women.html
Kasdan, D. (2009). Abortion access for incarcerated women: Are correctional health practices in conflict with constitutional standards? Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 41(1), 59–62. https://doi.org/10.1363/4105909
Kelsey, C. M., Medel, N., Mullins, C., Dallaire, D., & Forestell, C. (2017). An examination of care practices of pregnant women incarcerated in jail facilities in the United States. Matern Child Health Journal, 21(6), 1260–1266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-016-2224-5
Kirubarajan, A., Tsang, J., Dong, S., Hui, J., Sreeram, P., Mohmand, Z., Leung, S., Ceccacci, A., & Sobel, M. (2022). Pregnancy and childbirth during incarceration: A qualitative systematic review of lived experiences. BJOG, 129(9), 1460–1472. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.17137
Kramer, C., Thomas, K., Patil, A., et al. (2023). Shackling and pregnancy care policies in U.S. prisons and jails. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 27, 186–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-022-03526-y
Kuhlik, L., & Sufrin, C. (2020). Pregnancy, systematic disregard and degradation, and carceral institutions. Harvard Law and Policy Review, 14(2), 417–466. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/harlpolrv14&div=22&id=&page=
Maruschak, L. M. (2008). Medical problems of prisoners. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/medical-problems-prisoners
Mothers Behind Bars: State by State Report Card and Analysis of Federal Policies on Conditions of Confinement for Pregnant and Parenting Women and the Effect on Their Children (Rebecca Project for Human Rights/ National Women’s Law Center).
Muftić, L. R., Bouffard, L. A., & Armstrong, G. S. (2016). Impact of Maternal Incarceration on the Criminal Justice Involvement of Adult Offspring: A Research Note. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 53(1), 93-111. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427815593988
Mulligan, S. P. (2023). International law and agreements: Their effect upon U.S. law. Congressional Research Service. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL32528
Pregnant Women in State Prisons and Local Jails. (2024, October 2). Retrieved from U.S. Government Accountability Office: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-25-106404
Prison Journalism Project. (n.d.). Health & medical care archives. Prison Journalism Project. Retrieved February 21, 2025, from https://prisonjournalismproject.org/tag/health-medical-care/
Quandt, K. R., & Wang, L. (2021). Recent studies shed light on what reproductive “choice” looks like in prisons and jails. Prison Policy Initiative. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2021/12/08/reproductive_choice/
Rold, W. J. (2008). Thirty years after Estelle v. Gamble: A legal retrospective. Journal of Correctional Health Care, 14(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078345807309616
Ross, L. (2006). Understanding reproductive justice: Transforming the pro-choice movement. Off Our Backs, 36(4), 14–19. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20838711
Roth, R. & Ainsworth, S.(2020). “If they hand you a paper, you sign it”: A call to end the sterilization of women in prison. Hastings Women's Law Journal, 31(1), 1–25. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/haswo26&div=8&id=&page=
Roth, R. (2017). "She doesn’t deserve to be treated like this": Prisons as sites of reproductive injustice. In L. J. Ross, L. Roberts, E. Derkas, W. Peoples, & P. B. Toure (Eds.), Radical reproductive justice: Foundations, theory, practice, critique (pp. 145–160). The Feminist Press. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/Roth%202017%20Prisons%20Reproductive%20Injustice.pdf
Shlafer RJ, Hardeman RR, Carlson EA. (2019) Reproductive justice for incarcerated mothers and advocacy for their infants and young children. Infant Ment Health J.; 40: 725–741. https://doi.org/10.1002/imhj.21810
Shlafer, R. J., Hellerstedt, W. L., Secor-Turner, M., Gerrity, E., & Baker, R. (2014). Doulas’ perspectives about providing support to incarcerated women: A feasibility study. Public Health Nursing, 31(5), 444–453. https://doi.org/10.1111/phn.12137
Sufrin, C. B., et al. (2009). Contraception services for incarcerated women: A national survey of correctional health providers. Contraception, 80(6), 561–565. http://10.1016/j.contraception.2009.05.126
Sufrin, C., Beal, L., Clarke, J., et al. (2019). Pregnancy outcomes in US prisons, 2016–2017. American Journal of Public Health, 109(6), 799–805. https://10.2105/AJPH.2019.305006
Sufrin, C., Jones, R. K., Mosher, W. D., & Beal, L. (2020). Pregnancy prevalence and outcomes in U.S. jails. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 135(5), 1177–1183. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000003834
Sufrin, C., Jones, R. K., Beal, L., Mosher, W. D., & Bell, S. (2021). Abortion access for incarcerated people: Incidence of abortion and policies at U.S. prisons and jails. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 138(3), 330–337. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000004497
Sufrin, C., Devon-Williamston, A., Beal, L., Hayes, C., & Kramer, C. (2023). "I mean, I didn't really have a choice of anything:" How incarceration influences abortion decision-making and precludes access in the United States. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 55(3), 165–177. https://doi.org/10.1363/psrh.12235
The Sentencing Project (2018). Report to the United Nations on Racial Disparities in the U.S. Criminal Justice System. https://www.sentencingproject.org/reports/report-to-the-united-nations-on-racial-disparities-in-the-u-s-criminal-justice-system/
Thomas v. Corbett. (2014, April 29). Retrieved from vlex: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/thomas-vcorbett-889504110
UN General Assembly (2010). United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-Custodial Measures for Women Offenders (the Bangkok Rules). Retrieved from https://www.refworld.org/docid/4dcbb0ae2.html