A Review and Look Ahead at Criminalizing Pregnancy in the Name of State Interest in Fetal Life

Sarah E. Burns, S. Wheeler
{"title":"A Review and Look Ahead at Criminalizing Pregnancy in the Name of State Interest in Fetal Life","authors":"Sarah E. Burns, S. Wheeler","doi":"10.25172/smulr.76.2.6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Across the United States, and especially in communities that are highly policed and in places hostile to abortion, pregnant people are dying, suffering, being separated from their children and families, and going to jail and prison in purported service of the state interest in fetal life recognized in Roe v. Wade and expanded in Planned Parenthood of Pennsylvania v. Casey. This Article focuses on two common practices that cause these harms: criminalizing pregnant people and denying them medical decision-making authority. While these practices are not new, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization is accelerating them. With abortion returned to the states without a U.S. constitutional floor, the state interest in fetal life can go largely unchecked with respect to all pregnant people, not just those who need abortions. In this Article, we look back at several cases from the 1990s and early 2000s involving denials of medical decision-making authority and criminalization of pregnant people for substance use during pregnancy. We also discuss contemporary instances of these phenomenon, focusing on Alabama’s Child Chemical Endangerment Act and 1997 Wisconsin Act 292, both of which are currently and fervently used to punish pregnant people for actual or suspected substance use and which fail entirely to advance fetal or parental well-being. Based on our survey of these past and present cases, we reflect on several legal arguments and strategies to demand and restore full personhood for pregnant people. We link pregnancy criminalization to legally cognizable animus, observing that hallmark features of such animus abound when substance use during pregnancy is criminalized. We link environmental injustice to pregnancy criminalization, observing that it is irrational to punish and jail people for “polluting” the micro-environment of the womb in service of an interest in fetal life when all people—particularly the most policed—are perniciously, macro-environmentally exposed to toxins that impact reproduction and pregnancy. We reiterate that informed consent to medical treatment is the bedrock guarantee of healthcare and bodily autonomy—and pregnancy demands rather than diminishes this guarantee—and that drug tests without consent that lead to law enforcement consequences violate both this and the Fourth Amendment. We also very briefly emphasize that mandatory reporting of suspected child abuse or neglect based on a positive drug test fails to protect anyone and that mandatory reporters can challenge this obligation where it frustrates core professional duties. Together, all of these threads intersect to show that criminalizing pregnancy and denying pregnant people medical decision-making authority is about the social control and exclusion that punishment accomplishes. The impulse to control and exclude surely varies intersectionally, corresponding to the expectations and stereotypes about parenting applicable to the punished person or community. But in the end, in every case, no fetal life, no parental life, no family life, and no constitutional right or medical objective is protected or furthered when pregnancy is criminalized and pregnant people are denied medical decision-making authority.","PeriodicalId":80169,"journal":{"name":"SMU law review : a publication of Southern Methodist University School of Law","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SMU law review : a publication of Southern Methodist University School of Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25172/smulr.76.2.6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Across the United States, and especially in communities that are highly policed and in places hostile to abortion, pregnant people are dying, suffering, being separated from their children and families, and going to jail and prison in purported service of the state interest in fetal life recognized in Roe v. Wade and expanded in Planned Parenthood of Pennsylvania v. Casey. This Article focuses on two common practices that cause these harms: criminalizing pregnant people and denying them medical decision-making authority. While these practices are not new, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization is accelerating them. With abortion returned to the states without a U.S. constitutional floor, the state interest in fetal life can go largely unchecked with respect to all pregnant people, not just those who need abortions. In this Article, we look back at several cases from the 1990s and early 2000s involving denials of medical decision-making authority and criminalization of pregnant people for substance use during pregnancy. We also discuss contemporary instances of these phenomenon, focusing on Alabama’s Child Chemical Endangerment Act and 1997 Wisconsin Act 292, both of which are currently and fervently used to punish pregnant people for actual or suspected substance use and which fail entirely to advance fetal or parental well-being. Based on our survey of these past and present cases, we reflect on several legal arguments and strategies to demand and restore full personhood for pregnant people. We link pregnancy criminalization to legally cognizable animus, observing that hallmark features of such animus abound when substance use during pregnancy is criminalized. We link environmental injustice to pregnancy criminalization, observing that it is irrational to punish and jail people for “polluting” the micro-environment of the womb in service of an interest in fetal life when all people—particularly the most policed—are perniciously, macro-environmentally exposed to toxins that impact reproduction and pregnancy. We reiterate that informed consent to medical treatment is the bedrock guarantee of healthcare and bodily autonomy—and pregnancy demands rather than diminishes this guarantee—and that drug tests without consent that lead to law enforcement consequences violate both this and the Fourth Amendment. We also very briefly emphasize that mandatory reporting of suspected child abuse or neglect based on a positive drug test fails to protect anyone and that mandatory reporters can challenge this obligation where it frustrates core professional duties. Together, all of these threads intersect to show that criminalizing pregnancy and denying pregnant people medical decision-making authority is about the social control and exclusion that punishment accomplishes. The impulse to control and exclude surely varies intersectionally, corresponding to the expectations and stereotypes about parenting applicable to the punished person or community. But in the end, in every case, no fetal life, no parental life, no family life, and no constitutional right or medical objective is protected or furthered when pregnancy is criminalized and pregnant people are denied medical decision-making authority.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
以国家对胎儿生命利益的名义将怀孕定为刑事犯罪的回顾与展望
在美国各地,特别是在高度监管的社区和对堕胎持敌视态度的地方,怀孕的人正在死亡、痛苦、与孩子和家人分离,并被关进监狱和监狱,据称是为了维护国家对胎儿生命的利益,这在罗伊诉韦德案中得到了承认,并在宾夕法尼亚州计划生育联合会诉凯西案中得到了扩展。本文的重点是造成这些危害的两种常见做法:将孕妇定为刑事犯罪和剥夺她们的医疗决策权。虽然这些做法并不新鲜,但美国最高法院在多布斯诉杰克逊妇女健康组织案中的裁决加速了这种做法。随着堕胎在没有美国宪法基础的情况下回到各州,各州对胎儿生命的关注可以在很大程度上不受限制,对所有孕妇都是如此,而不仅仅是那些需要堕胎的人。在这篇文章中,我们回顾了20世纪90年代和21世纪初的几个案例,这些案例涉及拒绝医疗决策权和将怀孕期间使用药物的孕妇定罪。我们还讨论了这些现象的当代实例,重点是阿拉巴马州的《儿童化学品危害法案》和1997年威斯康星州的《292法案》,这两项法案目前都被热烈地用于惩罚实际或疑似使用药物的孕妇,而这完全不能促进胎儿或父母的健康。基于对这些过去和现在的案例的调查,我们反思了几个法律论据和策略,以要求和恢复孕妇完整的人格。我们将怀孕定罪与法律上可认知的敌意联系起来,观察到当怀孕期间使用物质被定罪时,这种敌意的标志性特征比比皆是。我们将环境不公正与怀孕定罪联系起来,观察到当所有人,特别是最受监管的人,都暴露在有害的宏观环境中,影响生殖和怀孕的毒素中,为了胎儿生命的利益而“污染”子宫的微观环境,惩罚和监禁人们是不合理的。我们重申,知情同意治疗是医疗保健和身体自主的基本保证,怀孕要求而不是削弱这一保证,未经同意的药物测试导致执法后果违反了这一点和第四修正案。我们还非常简要地强调,基于药物测试呈阳性而强制报告涉嫌虐待或忽视儿童的情况并不能保护任何人,如果强制记者妨碍了核心的专业职责,他们可以挑战这一义务。总之,所有这些线索交织在一起,表明将怀孕定为犯罪并剥夺孕妇的医疗决策权是关于惩罚所实现的社会控制和排斥。控制和排斥的冲动肯定是相互交织的,与适用于被惩罚的人或社区的父母的期望和刻板印象相对应。但最终,在任何情况下,当怀孕被定为犯罪,孕妇被剥夺医疗决策权时,胎儿生命、父母生命、家庭生活、宪法权利或医疗目标都得不到保护或促进。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Pregnancy Risk and Coerced Interventions after Dobbs Using a “Bystander Bounty” to Encourage the Reporting of Workplace Sexual Harassment A Tribute for Professor Lowe The Promise of Abortion Pills: Evidence on the Safety and Effectiveness of Self-Managed Medication Abortion and Opportunities to Expand Access Fracture: Abortion Law and Politics After Dobbs
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1