Abortion Rights for Prisoners
Historical Background – – key cases
–Griswold v. Connecticut – – 381 US 479 (1965)
Invalidated a law prohibiting contraception by married couples
–Eisenstadt v. Baird – – 405 US 438 (1972)
Extended right to use contraception to unmarried people
–Right to privacy is not a marital right
–Equal protection of the laws – -extends w/out regard to marital status
–Roe v. Wade – – 410 US 413 (1973)
Right to privacy extended to abortion decisions
Limitations (balancing rights of state/mother/fetus)
–right to abortion was not seen as absolute
–1st trimester abortions are “free of interference by state”
–After 1st trimester, states can “regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health”
–Planned Parenthood v. Casey – – 505 US 833, 873 (1992)
Rejected Trimester Framework – – undue burden standard
Dr. must tell patient about consequences to fetus
Upheld mandatory 24 hour waiting period between decision and abortion procedure
Struck down spousal notification requirement
Upheld parental consent for minors
Upheld record keeping requirement
Women do not need to explain their refusal to inform spouse of abortions
Estelle v. Gamble – – 429 US 97 (1976)
–Case involved J. W. Gamble’s Back injury in TDOC
–He argued that he got inadequate medical treatment
–Supreme Court did not grant relief to Gamble
–Court set two-fold criteria for inadequate medical care
–8th Amendment violations must demonstrate
1. That prisoner has a “serious medical need”
–E.g., severed ear, allergic reaction to penicillin, leg surgery
2. That prison officials acted with “deliberate indifference”
–E.g., no liability if official acted w/out “malice” or if denial of medical treatment was due to a “good faith mistake” (accidents do not count)
Turner v. Safley – – 482 US 78 (1987) – marital case
–A balancing test to determine if prisoner’s rights can be significantly curtailed
–“When a prison regulation impinges on inmates’ constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests”
1. Valid/rational connection between regulation & government interests to be served
2. Whether prisoner has alternative means to exercise rights
3. Whether accommodating right will have serious consequences on guards, prisoners, or allocation of prison resources in general
4. Whether there are alternative means to accommodate prisoners’ rights
Monmouth County Corr. Institution Inmates v. Lanzaro – – 486 US 1006 (1988)
–This case involves the issue of elective abortion
–Estelle v. Gamble standard applied to elective abortions
Pregnancy seen as serious medical need
Turner v. Safley – – standard applies to elective abortions
Denial or delay of elective abortion is not reasonably related to any legitimate penological interests
–No logical connection between abortion and security
–No alternative means for inmate to obtain abortion
–Providing abortion will not adversely impact prison resources (saves $)
–Thus, this case combined Estelle & Turner to hold that the right to an elective abortion is a constitutional right that may not be impinged upon by prison regulation (County must pay)
More recent issues
–Pregnant inmates are to be counseled on availability of abortions – – required
–Wardens are required to offer medical, religious, and social counseling to aid in prisoner’s decision making
–Prisoners need only to inform unit managers of her desire to seek abortions and arrangements are made (no 24 hr wait period) with a mandate for the state to coordinate all care
–If financially unable or unwilling to pay for abortion, county must still pay as per Monmouth Case
Policy Implications
–1. Administratively, prisons find it easier to deal with prison populations that are uncomplicated by pregnancies
No need for better nutrition, maternal clothing, prenatal care, medical care for labor/delivery
–2. Most prisons do not allow mothers and babies to remain together – – goes against polices that support intact families
–3. There may be an unspoken policy that encourages prisoners to have abortions – – prisoners and their babies may be seen as undesirables
4. Abortions potentially saves $ (no AFDC, Medicaid,…)
——————————————————————————————————————-
Courtesy of the Department of Criminal Justice at East Carolina University
-Lenna Jones