Marilu Morales has filed a federal lawsuit after being allegedly shackled while giving birth at Cook County Jail in Chicago.
...Morales was eight months' pregnant when she was incarcerated in April 2008, according to the lawsuit. It could not be immediately determined on what charges Morales was being held.When she went into labor three days later, she was taken to Stroger. A sheriff's deputy shackled a hand and foot to the hospital bed, the lawsuit alleged.
Morales was in labor for four hours before a physician ordered the deputy to remove the shackles shortly before she gave birth, the lawsuit said. The shackles were allegedly put back on immediately after the baby was born.
This is the fourth lawsuit that Flaxman has filed against Sheriff Tom Dart's office regarding a pregnant prisoner had been shackled while giving birth. Unbelievable.
Related posts: Judge jails HIV positive woman to "protect" her fetus
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: Chicago woman is shackled while giving birth.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/14348
The story says she wasn't shackled while giving birth.
However, the woman was indeed constrained during much of the labor. And if the doctor didn't speak up, she certainly would have remained so the whole time.
Still repulsive and inhumane.
I'm pretty sure that most reasonable people consider "giving birth" to include more than the moment the infant is half inside and half outside the vagina. And also more than just the second stage/pushing stage.
A woman in active labor whose cervix is dilating and whose baby is descending lower into the pelvis IS giving birth.
Unfortunately, this isn't a one-off thing, though it is getting (thankfully) less common... I remember when I was working with a drug policy org and reading about numerous cases stemming from drug-testing pregnant women (without consent) and then incarcerating women who tested positive in S Carolina. That was back in 02 or something, but the cases dated back earlier... and then there's this NYT article from 06...
It's unconscionable and almost unbelievable, but is terrifyingly true... kind of brings to mind the 13th amendment's big gaping hole regarding "slavery and involuntary servitude" being just fine as "punishment for a crime." It's disgusting how far we haven't come in 150 years.
Thanks for bringing light to this, Jessica... are there any ways for folks to take action?
The statute involved is 55 ILCS 5/3-15003.6, which states:
Pregnant female prisoners. Notwithstanding any other statute, directive, or administrative regulation, when a pregnant femaleprisoner is brought to a hospital from a County Department of Corrections facility for the purpose of delivering her baby, no handcuffs, shackles,or restraints of any kind may be used during her transport to a medical facility for the purpose of delivering her baby. Under no circumstancesmay leg irons or shackles or waist shackles be used on any pregnant female prisoner who is in labor. Upon the pregnant female prisoner's entry tothe hospital delivery room, a county correctional officer must be posted immediately outside the delivery room. The Sheriff must provide foradequate personnel to monitor the pregnant female prisoner during her transport to and from the hospital and during her stay at the hospital.
The statute says no restraints of any kind may be used during transport, and no "leg irons or shackles or waist shackles" during labor. Apparently, the way the Illinois DoC reads this is that you can't use any restraints during transport, but once you get to the hospital, you can use any restraints except leg irons or waist shackles, so handcuffing the wrist is fine.
Unfortunately, I can understand how a mean-spirited person could read the statute that way, and comply with the letter of the law, if not the spirit. The legislature screwed up drafting this.
But wouldn't handcuffs count as a form of shackles? Because the statute says "leg irons or shackles or waist shackles" so you think that would cover all the bases. If it doesn't cover handcuffs, to what are those shackles even referring to?
Actually, since they specify handcuffs in the first sentence, it stands to reason that their omission in the subsequent sentence is meaningful. Also, "leg irons or shackles or waist shackles" reads the same as "leg irons, leg shackles or waist shackles." In other words, I think the law itself was written to enable this sort of cruelty. I can't see how it could be worded like that if they didn't mean it's groovy to cuff a woman when she's in labor or giving birth. Horrible, right?
Thanks for the clarifications everyone. This is one of the things about law that really really annoys me. I work as a legal assistant so I have to draft up legal documents all the time and the wording is just ridiculous. It's supposedly written in a specific way so that it cannot be misinterpreted but instead it just leads to all sorts of confusion and the only people that can then make any sense of the documents at all are lawyers and judges.
I believe they're reading "leg irons or shackles or waist shackles" as "irons or shackles on the leg, or waist shackles". Like, leg(irons or shackles) and waist(shackles).
Like I said, I think it's a mean-spirited reading, but the statute is worded badly. I mean, if you're outlawing all restraints in transport, and then in the next sentence outlawing specific types during labor, then it seems to imply that types other than the specific ones mentioned are allowed during labor.
Apparently, they drafted the statute in response to a case where a woman jumped out of a hospital window, so it does seem like they did intend to allow some restraints... But, that case involved an inmate being treated for depression, not one who was pregnant.
Just taking a quick look at a wiki entry on Shackles, and handcuffs aren't included in the description. Shackles appear to me (now) more commonly used for industrial purposes, such as mooring boats. That said, the entry on Fetters is more what I believe this piece of law is referring to. Fetters are any kind of physical restraint for the feet to allow walking but prevent running and kicking.
The omission of handcuffs in that key sentence seems deliberate. I'm not convinced that it's entirely bad, but like all things, can be abused.
What is the Illinois law/policy about restraining other prisoners in hospitals? What about the disabled prisoners?