A woman from the African nation of Cameroon could give birth in a federal prison because she is HIV-positive.U.S. District Judge John Woodcock last month sentenced Quinta Layin Tuleh, 28, to 238 days in federal prison for having fake documents. Woodcock said the sentence would ensure that Tuleh's baby, due Aug. 29, has a good chance of being born free of the AIDS virus.
"Judges cannot lock a woman up simply because she is sick and pregnant," said Zachary Heiden, legal director for the Maine Civil Liberties Union.
"Judges have enormous discretion in imposing sentences, and that is appropriate. But jailing someone is punishment -- it is depriving them of liberty. That deprivation has to be justified, and illness or pregnancy is not justification for imprisonment."
Yet that's exactly what Woodcock did - using the paternalistic justification that he is looking out for the best interest of Tuleh's unborn child, who he apparently thinks will benefit from the stellar prenatal care given in prison.
"My obligation is to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant," he said at Tuleh's sentencing, "and that public, it seems to me at this point, should likely include that child she's carrying. I don't think that the transfer of HIV to an unborn child is a crime technically under the law, but it is as direct and as likely as an ongoing assault."If I had -- if I were to know conclusively that upon release from imprisonment a defendant was going to assault another person," Woodcock said, "I would act in a fashion to prevent that, and similar to an assault, causing grievous injury to a wholly innocent person. And so I think I have the obligation to do what I can to protect that person, when that person is born, from permanent and ongoing harm."
I agree with Jess: I fail to see how Tuleh's inability (if that really is the case) to procure affordable, decent healthcare is an "assault" against her fetus, rather than the system's assault of Tuleh. And of course, one wonders if Woodcock's decision would have been the same had Tuleh been from Denmark or Italy, not Cameroon...though you don't have to wonder long. (70% of cases involving prosecuting pregnant women are brought against women of color.)
For more information on the U.S.' long history of persecuting pregnant women (and what you can do about it) check out the National Advocates for Pregnant Women, the Women and Prison project, and the Rebecca Project for Human Rights.
Related posts: New report: Mothering in Prison
Woman gives birth in jail cell, alone
Bureau of Prisons bans shackling pregnant inmates
Critical Resistance: Prisons as a Tool of Reproductive Oppression
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Judge jails HIV positive woman to "protect" her fetus .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/14080
Wow, we had "Driving While Black," it looks like now we have "Pregnant While Black" as a valid reason to strip someone of their civil liberties.
U.S.A! U.S.A!
that poor woman, my heart goes out to her. This is so fucked up.
Wow, I am trying to get my head around all the layers of 'wrong' here. Not to mention the obvious extremely dangerous precedent this is setting. And, we're protecting unborn children as if they were full fledged members of the public? (Or perhaps protecting a future person, assuming the alleged assault wouldn't take place until the time of birth. If that's what the judge's decision was made on, then who's to stop another judge jailing a poor pregnant woman who cant afford access to health care.. She's assaulting her fetus by not maintaining her health during pregnancy, like this woman is doing.
Is there any other way of preventing transmission of HIV to the baby other than a C-Section? I can see a whole mess of problems from requiring a woman to go under the knife.
Not to mention, the fact that he readily admitted that there is no law for this sort of thing. He's just making it up as he goes along. Talk about activist judges....
Standard treatment is not c-section but antiviral drugs, which reduce viral load and thus reduce transmission from mom to child.
There is no f-ing excuse for this. The judge could have ordered her to apply for Medicaid which would have supplied the drugs, and in the end is still cheaper to the State than incarceration.
completely agree. not to mention, prison is a wonderful place to get tuberculosis. (incarceration is generally considered a risk factor, as well as homelessness or living in shelters).
i am totally bewildered by this sentence. if he wanted to protect the fetus from HIV, he just had to mandate application to Medicaid, and perhaps mandate that her HIV drugs be covered. He could have even had visiting nursing services set up to assess her compliance in/ability to take the meds on a daily basis, as is done for people taking medicine for active TB.
the best thing for that baby is *mom's freedom* and access to antiretroviral therapy.
but incarceration?! i just don't get it. who is this guy!?
A friend of mine has a brother ans sister-in-law who just found out they are expecting their 9th child (their 8th is 5 months old) and they know that they have a 50-50 chance of having children that have cleft palates. I wonder why this judge isn't throwing one of them in jail?
If there is a ray of hope in this story, it's that the federal prosecutors realize how screwed up
this is and are the ones pushing the appeal.
Unfortunately, even with the 'expedited' schedule, it hardly matters if the sentence is overturned. They're going to hear arguments on late July-- assume that the appeals court overturns the judge on the spot (unlikely). She'll be eight months pregnant by then, and my understanding is that international flights aren't safe for people that pregnant-- I'm a lawyer not a doctor, so correct me if I'm wrong about that.
MLEmac28--yes, absolutely. The woman can take medication that can help prevent transmission (ART or anti retroviral treatment). AZT is most commonly used and is administered throughout prenatal care, during labor, and for 6 weeks to the infant after birth. This can usually bring the risk of transmission down from about 25% to 10%. If surgery is used, it can bring the rate down to as little as 2%. (I work for a sexual health hotline and am getting this information from our database)
On a different note, I think it is important to point out the many facets of this case--a woman's right to choose, the right of HIV postive people (no laws on this on the books in Maine from what I see: http://www.lambdalegal.org/our-work/publications/general/state-criminal-statutes-hiv.html), etc.
Want to comment on much more, but unfortunately, my lunch break is over!
Yeah, this is... weird. It's also wrong on many different levels. (It's not mentioned above, but the links above mention that both the prosecuting attorney and the defense attorney objected to the sentence.)
I wish I could comment on all the nuance of this, but I don't have the time. I think it is sad that the woman is being treated like a nonentity because she is a vessel for her child.
This would not be a problem somewhere like the UK, where an immigrant would get medical treatment for her and the fetus without having to spend a year in jail.
I would also like to sigh and say the ACLU legal director quoted above is my ex boyfriend. Back when I wasn't ready for a nice guy. Sigh, the one that got away. He is doing all sorts of great stuff now. Go Zach!
Mighty Ponygirl- What the hell does this have to do with her being black???
The article says, "70% of cases involving prosecuting pregnant women are brought against women of color."
Yes, and black women are more likely to be screened for HIV. (Or illegal drugs, for that matter).
On the Bangor Daily News link there is a poll that says, "Should a judge be able to impose a longer sentence in order to protect an inmate’s unborn child? " And 61% said YES. 61%!? Vomit.
I struggle with this. On the one hand, if this is a lack-of-access problem for her-- if she genuinely just can't get a doctor to provide her with the appropriate medications to prevent transmission to her child for a price she can afford-- the answer is easy; give her the medicines for free through Medicaid or something else.
If it's a question of fear and misunderstanding on her part, she needs education; they should attempt to explain to her that her child does not have to have HIV and the drugs will prevent it.
But... if she cannot be convinced to take free provided medications that would save her child from having HIV, if she genuinely refuses, AND she has already made it clear that she intends to carry the child to term... Knowing you have HIV and giving it to someone else without their informed consent is at least assault, sometimes murder, and what's worse, will further spread a deadly disease. She should at least be monitored so the baby can be removed and given retrovirals after birth. I mean, it's not like this is something that isn't preventable right now, like a cleft palate or Down's. While I can't condone forcing her to take medications even to prevent the future suffering and possible death of a child (fetus now, but CHILD or even ADULT when they will suffer or die-- so he's not protecting the fetus, he's protecting the child she has already decided to have), I can DEFINITELY see wanting to monitor her so they can remove the child from her custody once born until the child is confirmed HIV-free (and the woman's milk is dried up, if she wanted to breastfeed the child too).
Something has to be done to prevent the spread of HIV, but locking her up isn't the answer unless they think she's going to run away and have her baby in secret so the baby will contract HIV.