The
Forgotten: Incarcerated Mothers
by Molly Morningstar
As the amount of female prisoners continues
to skyrocket, the need to acknowledge their existence increases exponentially.
Not only do these prisoners need recognition from the public sphere, their rights
and treatment must be protected. Prison, as it currently operates, functions as
a modern kind of social death, one where prisoners are devoid of rights and
representation. Confinement tactics that are reminiscent of slavery still
plague the experiences of American female prisoners, whose reproductive rights
are infringed upon and forgotten. As the personhood of prisoners is neglected,
so goes their ability to engage in aspects of life that are protected by the
United States constitution. Ultimately, these abuses lead to the destruction of
prisoner’s roles as mothers and full members of society. The poor treatment of
female prisoners and disregard for their reproductive health, however, remains
largely outside the feminist sphere of intellectual thought, and begs the
question of who remains marginalized despite a growing body of feminist
literature. The destruction of women’s reproductive rights, and human rights,
is influenced by historical tactics of subordination, and continues to damage
the physical and psychological health of women. Furthermore, it permeates into
our larger society, and functions as a leg in the structure of oppression
within the United States. An evaluation of prisoner’s rights is essential in
understanding the human rights abuses that incarcerated women routinely suffer.
Within the United States prisoners do not hold all of their constitutional
rights; but they are protected by certain amendments. A prisoner’s rights are
decided state by state, with a few pertinent exceptions. The 8th Amendment
requires that they not experience any form of cruel or unusual punishment, and
ensures them a certain standard of living. They are also protected by the
Fourteenth Amendment, which grants them the right to raise and bear children,
or choose to have an abortion. Additionally, the United Nations has declared
reproductive rights as a basic human right, and attempts to ensure this through
the UNFPA, the UN Population Fund. One of
their major goals, stated in the organizations website section titled About
UNFPA, is to deliver “a world where every pregnancy is wanted, every
birth is safe, every young person's potential is fulfilled”. is This includes a
birth with “Antenatal, safe delivery, and post-natal care”. The recognition of
a safe birth is a key element in evaluating prisoners reproductive rights, as
the birthing process is often abusive, traumatic, and unsafe. By viewing
reproductive rights through the lens of human rights, it becomes clear that the
mistreatment of women within the prison system is a violation of not only the
Constitution, but also a crime against humanity. Luna expresses this by saying
“A human right implies
that any system of government is unacceptable if it denies the full expression
of the natural, inalienable rights of human beings” (Luna 346). Therefore,
abusive practices should be addressed by the public and political alike. To
further understand the extent of these human rights violations, it is necessary
to comprehend the sheer numbers are incarcerated mothers and girls within the
US prison system.
Women are the fastest growing group to be entering into US prisons (Vainik
671). For instance, the level of female prisoners “increased by 500% during
1980 to 1995” (Vainik). Furthermore, the majority of these women are mothers.
Lynn M. Paltrow, in her article titled Roe v Wade and the New Jane
Crow: Reproductive Rights in the Age of Mass Incarceration states that
“Two thirds of the incarcerated women in the United States have at least one
minor child, and approximately five percent of women are pregnant when
they begin their incarceration” (Paltrow 17). These numbers alone should
inspire public discourse on the reproductive rights of women, but their
existence is relatively absent from the academic sphere. It is argued the
numbers of women who are sent to prison is the result of the war on drugs and
its unforgiving policies towards people who are seen as fellow conspirators.
Kimberle Crenshaw points out that these rising numbers of women in prison is
reflective of “gendered relations between men and women” (Crenshaw 1440). She
illuminates the fact that women fill the subordinate role in many
relationships, resulting in their inability to control their breadwinner’s
actions. Whitehead furthers this point, and highlights it’s effects: “In the case of the war
on drugs, women experience a double exploitation: the patriarchal justice
system ignores women’s oppression in dependent relationships where they are
often forced to cover up the illegal activity of their male partners, and it
fails to recognize the ultimate harm that results from dislocating women from
their families” (Whitehead 301). Whiteheads quote is particularly pertinent to
my argument, as it highlights the connection between patriarchy within society
and its effect on families via the judicial system. Crenshaw’s work is
focused on the intersectionality on the era of mass incarceration, and points
out that it is not only a result of gender dynamics, but also historical and
consistent dynamics of race and class.
Crenshaw, in her essay From Private Violence to Mass Incarceration:
Thinking Intersectionally About Women, Race, and Social Control highlights
how structures within society create a set of vulnerabilities that
disproportionally effect black women, who represent the largest cohort of
female prisoners. She remarks, “single Black mothers are disproportionately low income, a
socioeconomic consequence that is itself a product of the interlocking
dimensions of race, class, and gender inequality” (Crenshaw 1441). Crenshaw
argues that these women are at the lowest tier of social hierarchy, and
experience the highest levels of overpolicing and underprotection. She uses the
example of Section 8 housing vouchers that were given to economically distraught
families, which allowed single Black women to move into housing units in
predominantly white, middle class neighborhoods. The local police, who devised
a force to deal with the new “hazard”, saw this as a threat. The police then
failed to protect families during times of distress and abuse, and instead
subjected them to repeated investigation. Crenshaw claims that this is
representative of the complicated “institutional interface between subsidy programs
and policing” (Crenshaw 1442), which puts those who are most vulnerable under
constant scrutiny. Volscho provides a link between reproductive rights and the
State’s power when he points out that state lawmakers repeatedly introduced
bills in the early 1990s to require women of public assistance to use Norplant,
a form of birth control which temporarily sterilizes the woman. These analysis
are important in the understanding of women as not only victims of a
patriarchal society, but also as agents within the interaction of state power.
Roth claims that the proliferation of female prisoners is deeply tied to
ideologies, political structures, and economics (Roth 417). Roth and Crenshaw
illuminate how the rising levels of women in the prison system are a result of
historical and structural aspects of American society. This analysis is
particularly important when attempting to understand why discourses on
prisoner’s rights and experiences are absent from the public sphere. Historical
treatment of women in prison is helpful in illustrating how current prison policies
are intersectional, and why they continue to be abusive.
History shows us how the
imprisonment of women has always been relevant to their reproductive rights,
and the woman’s race was indicative of what kind of penal institution she would
be sent to. Vainik discusses how white women were sent to reformatory
institutions where “The majority of such institutions adopted a matron system wherein
a female oversaw the women prisoners and applied the maternal rehabilitative
approach” (Vainik 672). Women who attained the skills necessary to be proper
housewives were rewarded with nightly activities of conversation, needlework,
and refreshments (Vainik 672). We see that the segregation of white women and
black women in the US prison system was directly tied to the role of the
mother, with a special emphasis on domesticity and “demure sexuality” (Vainik
673). White women were often not separated from their children, “inmates were
allowed to keep their babies or children with them while they lived at the reformatories. Children
not only intensified the domestic atmosphere of the reformatory but also spared
mothers from the physiological and psychological trauma of separation from
their children” (Vainik 673). Comparatively, black women were not offered the
same luxuries.
African American women experienced abuses and a severe lack of infrastructure
during their incarceration. Vainik argues, “Prison policies actively penalized
black motherhood” (Vainik 673). They experienced decrepit conditions and a lack
of health or educational services. There were no rehabilitation services, and
no data to show that they were allowed to keep their children with them. Vainik
contends that not only their motherhood was being attacked, but their sexuality
as a whole. Black women often underwent involuntary hysterectomies, or were
required to take different forms of birth control. Volscho argues that
pervasive racist stereotypes “help to constrain, minimize, or completely
eliminate reproductive activities of women of color” (Volscho 676). He
goes on to discuss the stereotypes as they refer to sexuality, such as the
“jezebel” conception of Black female sexuality. These notions then permeate the
medical and judicial systems, which operate with a racist lens and believe,
subconsciously or not, that they are “acting to stop the spread of black
women’s immoral character” (Vainik 674). This understanding of the historical
abuses of African American women sets the stage to better understand how our
modern day prisons continue to operate within a framework that is not only
inherently racist, but also strategically aimed at the controlling reproductive
rights of female inmates. Specifically, the experience of childbirth is a
stunning example of how the historical treatment of women permeates our modern
penitentiary system.
Prison’s treatment of mothers and pregnant women is both abusive and unsafe. We
see this through a story told by Jenni Vainik in her paper titled The
Reproductive and Parental Rights of Incarcerated Mothers. The story
regards a women serving time in the McPherson Unit in Newport, Arkensas:
Shawanna went into
labor. Despite her pleas, prison officials did not bring her to the hospital
right away. Instead, Shawanna spent her first twelve hours of labor in her
prison cell. During those twelve hours, the officers only allowed
Shawanna to have Tylenol to relieve the pain of her contractions. By the
time Shawanna arrived at the hospital, her orange prison garb was dripping wet
with amniotic fluid and her legs were shackled together. She—along with
her doctor and two nurses—asked the armed guard who accompanied her into the
delivery room to remove the shackles from her legs. Nevertheless, the
guard refused to unshackle Shawanna. The experience of giving birth while
immobilized left Shawanna with lasting back pain and permanent damage to her
sciatic nerve (Vainik 670).
Vainik describes the prison guard’s absolute disregard for
Shawanna’s safety and experience. It is apparent that the officials had no sort
of empathy towards her, and their actions are dehumanizing and cruel.
Shawanna’s story is not an anomaly; rather, it represents the multitudes of
experiences endured by female prisoners. Based on the shocking numbers of
pregnant female prisoners, we can only assume that thousands of women undergo
this same abuse. Shackling during birth is reminiscent of slavery tactics, a
way of degrading a woman physically and psychologically. Vainik states: “both
mother and baby are forcefully made aware that they are subjects of social
contempt” (Vainik 678). This observation cannot be negated when reflecting on
the analysis by Crenshaw and Roth, who see the presence of so many
African-American prisoners as a reflection of larger social and structural
aggression. This social contempt seems to be the only explanation for the
absence of protest in defending prisoner’s rights. Furthermore, a safe delivery
it implicit in The Right to Bear Children, and these practices directly
jeopardize this on both a psychological and physical level.
Not only do women
experience abuse during the birthing process, but their health is also ignored
throughout pregnancy. Judith Merenda Wismont’s article in the “Journal of
Midwifery & Womens Health” reported that women’s health care needs are
routinely neglected, and states: “Deficiencies were identified in the areas of
routine health and obstetric care, as well as emergency care” (Wismont 293). An
explanatory factor in this deficiency could be Roth’s explanation of how
“tensions between security and medicine are ‘resolved’ in favor of security”
(Roth 428). This system of resolution results in the threatened state of
incarcerated women’s health. While there is no doubt that their state of health
of endangered, an understanding of how the prison system impacts the mothering
of women is increasingly important. Wismont outlines how the experience of
being pregnant within prison is incredibly difficult for women, and that the
grief and emotional distress associated with the inability to mother their future
or previously born children caused great psychological distress. Wismont
discusses how the distancing that incarcerated mothers experience from their
fetus might jeopardize the desire to make positive choices, such as
“participation in mothering classes, abstinence from drug and alcohol use, and
educational opportunities and employment counseling” (Wismont 299).
Psychological distress is not to be discounted in the evaluation of how female
prisoners will go on to mother after their release, especially following such
intense levels of systematic abuse. The impact that the prison system has on
the family structure is equally relevant in evaluating the long-term effects of
the relationship between incarceration and motherhood.
Despite their
constitutional protections, female prisoners “lose full legal and physical
custody rights to their children” (Vainik 676). Unless a family member is
willing to care for a child born to a female inmate, he gets put into the
foster care system. The functioning of the US prison system is detrimental to
the family structure, particularly the African American family. Crenshaw
discusses how the prison and foster care systems are parallel, how an
involvement in one leads to the other. These two institutions work to further
the destruction of motherhood for those who enter the system poor, and will
likely return to poor communities. As Gilmore puts it, “being locked in and
locked out are two sides of the same coin” (Gilmore 230). In effect, we see how
the intersection between family and incarceration furthers systems of
subordination and control, as those who are released from prison experience a
fractioning of their family structure. Gilmore, though primarily focusing on
mothers working to reclaim their incarcerated sons, highlights how the entire
prison industrial complex serves to disjoint the family structure of those who
are already at the bottom of the social and societal tier. There are
groups working to counter these oppressive structures, and calls from many
scholars for more academic focus on the treatment of the prison population.
The Prison Birth Project
is an organization that works out of Chicopee, MA. It is of particular interest
to me as I worked as a doula in Western MA, and had a strong tie to the
birth-world there. A doula is a support person for women during labor,
pregnancy and the post-partum period. Though strictly non-medical, we undergo
training that allows us to support women through information, physical care,
and emotional assurance. As a witness to birth, it is disturbing to learn of
the atrocious birthing conditions that some women are subjected to. However,
organizations such as the Prison Birth Project describe themselves as “a reproductive justice
organization providing support, education, advocacy, and activism training to
women at the intersection of the criminal justice system and motherhood”
(Prison Birth Project). One of the most important aspects of the PBP is their
commitment to advocacy and participation in the public sphere. Though, they
have other programs focusing on doula support for women, and providing
pre-natal education to incarcerated women who would otherwise have none. Groups
such as the PBP are essential for raising awareness in every public sphere.
Even as a doula working in a very active birth community, the discourse on
women who are deeply marginalized, such as prisoners, remains absent. This same
deficiency can be seen in feminist literature, where incarcerated women remain
undefended. A greater academic outcry is a necessary step in returning the
human rights to prisoners, and recognizing the detrimental effects that this
treatment has on them as individuals, and also as a group. Despite an
increasingly active feminist discussion, the recognition that certain groups
remain marginalized and unrepresented is essential if the most simplistic goals
of feminism are to be achieved.
By
viewing reproductive rights as human rights, it is clear that women and mothers
within the prison system are systematically abused and degraded. Their role in
society leaves them invisible to not only the public, but also to the scholarly
realm. The treatment of women during birth is just one example of how the
reproductive rights of women are being routinely infringed upon, though these
violations permeate all aspects of prisoner’s sexuality, health, and future.
The defilement of women’s reproductive health is influenced by historical
tactics of subordination, and continues to damage the physical and
psychological health of women. Furthermore, it permeates into our larger
society, and functions as a leg in the structure of oppression within the
United States. It is necessary to further evaluate how to change current
practices within US prisons, and to address the system that is sending them
there in the first place. This discussion on reproductive rights opens the door
to questions about socioeconomic status, race, and class, and how all these
combine in the formation of the prison population.
Works Cited
Crenshaw,
Kimberle. “From Private Violence to Mass Incarceration: Thinking
Intersectionally About Women, Race, and Social Control.” Web. 20 November 2013.
Gilmore,
Ruth Wilson. 2007. “Mothers Reclaiming our Children.” Golden Gulag: Prisons, Surplus, Crisis, and Opposition in Globalizing
California. University of California Press. 181-240.
Luna,
Zakiya. “From Rights to Justice: Women of Color Changing the Face of US
Reproductive Rights Organizing” Societies
Without Borders. 4 (2009): 343-365. Print. 20 November 2013.
Paltrow,
Lynn M. “Row V Wade and the New Jane Crow: Reproductive Rights in the age of
Mass Incarceration” American Journal of
Public Health. 103.1 (2013): 17-21. Web. November 21 2013.
Roth,
Rachel. "Searching for the State: Who Governs Prisoners' Reproductive
Rights?" Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State
and Society. 11.3 (2003): 411-438. Web. 19 Nov. 2013.
Vainik,
Jenni. “The Reproductive and Parental Rights of Incarcerated Mothers.” Family Court Review. 46.4 (2008):
670-694. Web. November 21 2013.
Volscho,
Thomas. "Racism and Disparities in Women's Use of the Depo-Provera
Injection in the Contemporary USA." Critical Sociology. 37.673
(2011): 673-688. Print.
Wismont, Merenda Judith RN, PhD. “The Lived
Pregnancy Experience of Women in Prison.” Journal of Midwifery & Women’s
Health. 45.4 (2000): 292-300. Web. 19 November 2013.
Whitehead, Jaye Cee. “Feminist prison activism: An assessment of
empowerment.” Feminist Theory. 8.3
(2007): 299-314. Web. 19 November 201.
http://theprisonbirthproject.org. Accessed December 9th
2013
No comments:
Post a Comment