It was Florida’s dirty shameful secret:  for decades, Florida women who entered jail when pregnant often gave birth under extraordinarily inhumane conditions, with their hands and feet cuffed, and sometimes, with leg irons.  Doctors’ and nurses’ pleas to remove the restraints fell on deaf ears, as the corrections officers called the shots.

In 2009, I received a letter from a woman in jail on the west coast of Florida; she told me that during labor, both of her hands and one foot were cuffed to the hospital bedrails.  During active labor, when it was time to push, she couldn’t pull up on her legs.  Ask any obstetrical nurse or physician:  that’s bad for the woman, and bad for the baby.  Then, after her baby was born, her handcuffs prevented her from holding her newborn.  Again – bad for the woman; bad for the baby.

This was just one letter I received from women in jail – there were many others, all of which told the same stories of the woman’s restraint during labor, delivery, and recovery.  Not all county jails subscribed to this cruel practice:  some had compassionate birthing practices that involved midwives and doulas.  However, there were no uniform guidelines, no statewide standards.  Whether a woman was shackled during labor and delivery depended on where she was incarcerated, and whether the corrections officer showed any compassion.

But thanks to a bill awaiting Governor Scott’s approval, that’s all going to change.  The bill, sponsored in 2012 by Senator Arthenia Joyner (D-Tampa) and Rep. Betty Reed (D-Tampa) is named the “Healthy Pregnancies for Incarcerated Women Act,” and bans the use of restraints on prisoners during labor, delivery, and recovery unless they present a true security risk or flight risk.  In 2011, the bill, sponsored by then-Senator Tony Hill and Rep. Reed, passed the Florida Senate unanimously but stalled in the House.

Jail is a terrible place to be pregnant.  Now, however, women in Florida’s jails who have the misfortune of giving birth during their jail terms will at least be free of the hobbling restraints that were the norm rather than the exception across Florida.  Better for the women; better for their babies.  Thank you, Senators Joyner, Hill, and Rep. Reed, on behalf of all the women behind bars who can’t convey to you their personal thanks. We’ll tell them how you, and the entire Florida Legislature, stood up for them and their babies.

 

By Desmond Meade, President, Florida Rights Restoration Coalition

On Thursday, March 8th, Florida International University College of Law’s chapters of the American Constitution Society and the Federalist Society held a debate concerning Felon Disfranchisement. Marc Mauer, president of The Sentencing Project and Roger Clegg, president of the Center for Equal Opportunity offered their views on whether ex-felons should have the right to vote. A spirited debate which got testy at times, gave the audience an excellent view of the polarized viewpoints on an issue in the spotlight in Florida because of the upcoming Presidential election, the role that Florida will play in that election, and the current clemency policies of Governor Scott and his Cabinet.

Thursday's event promoted a moral and legal discussion not just on felon voting rights, but on how disenfranchisement policies are tied to broader questions about the role of democracy in shaping political and social equality. Students pointed out the effects of systemic racism and the war on drugs to criticize Florida's disenfranchisement policies, and expressed concern over the unprecedented expansion of the US prison system.

It instantly became apparent that in order to justify felon disfranchisement, a negative image of impacted individuals had to be developed. From the viewpoint of Mr. Clegg, it would seem that all felons were terrorist assassins who burned, and pillaged our cities. This fictional felon created by Mr. Clegg became the basis of his position that the fundamental right to vote should be denied to all felons, even after they have repaid their debt to society.

Mr. Clegg eventually had to admit that the fictional character he created was a grossly inaccurate depiction of the typical individual impacted by these policies. Mr. Clegg, however, chose to ignore the detrimental impact felon disfranchisement have on the families of formerly incarcerated individuals, and the communities in which they live. Mr. Clegg was unable to reason away the reality that every time a person is disenfranchised, their community loses a voice, and for every voice that a community loses, the more insignificant that community becomes in the eyes of elected officials who are driven by votes.

Florida currently has over 1 million disenfranchised residents, and that number will continue to grow due to clemency policies that make civil rights restoration virtually impossible. That’s over 1 million individuals who, while paying taxes, are prevented from voting, and are severely restricted from obtaining safe and affordable housing.

In the debate, Mr. Mauer correctly surmised that the basic principles of civility and citizenship dictate that all individuals are entitled to have the right to vote; the right to have their voices heard, and participate in the decisions that govern the society in which they live. Mr. Mauer also exposed the absurdity of the unfounded notion that civil rights restoration is a threat to the voting process. The fact is that the real threats to voting are preventing or restricting eligible voters from casting their vote freely, and adopting policies that disenfranchise citizens, in many cases for life.

In a recent CNN online poll, only 20% of responders believed that an ex-felon should not regain their rights to vote.

Obviously the majority of Americans do not believe in Mr. Clegg’s “boogie man” convict.

(Bobby Joe Bracy contributed material for this post).

By Martha Jackovics, Beach Peanuts

Despite all the legislation from last year's session of the Florida Legislature aimed at blocking abortions in the state, no abortion bills were passed in the 2012 session, but not for lack of trying. Ten anti-abortion bills were introduced this year, compared to 18 bills introduced last year.

Considering the push against women's health issues and abortion throughout the country in states controlled by Republicans, this was a win for women's health in Florida.

Consider last year's session:

Abortion bills from 2011:

ABORTION — CHOOSE LIFE (Passed): Proceeds from Choose Life license plates will go to Choose Life Inc. for assisting pregnant women, instead of counties. (SB 196/HB 501)

ABORTION — HEALTH CARE EXCHANGES (Passed): Health care plans created through the federal health care law cannot offer coverage for abortions. (SB 1414/HB 97)

ABORTION — PARENTAL NOTIFICATION (Passed): Requires minors seeking a judicial waiver for parental notification of an abortion to get the waiver in district court rather than a wider-reaching appeals court. (SB 1770/HB 1247)

ABORTION — THIRD-TRIMESTER BAN (Failed): Expands ban on third-trimester abortions to include viability of the fetus. Doctors who perform abortions would be required to receive ethics training. (SB 1748/HB 1397)

ABORTION — ULTRASOUND (Passed): Women preparing to undergo an abortion must be offered the opportunity to have the results and images of an ultrasound explained to them. Woman can decline to see the image. (SB 1744/HB 1127)

During the 2012 session, at least ten anti-abortion bills were introduced. Among them, one introduced by Republican Rep. Charles Van Zant which would have made it a felony to perform an abortion unless strict criteria were met, and with no exceptions for rape or incest.  Another would have outlawed race and sex based abortions. The “fetal pain” bill was introduced, which would have outlawed abortions after 20 weeks. There was also a bill that women’s health advocates called an “omnibus anti-choice bill” because it contained several measures that would make it harder for women to obtain a legal abortions and harder for providers to provide the legal service.

The race and sex based abortion bill was introduced despite the lack of  evidence that such a thing occurs, and it was much the same with the fetal pain bill. The fetal pain bill would have made no exceptions in the case of rape or incest, even though research on whether a fetus can feel pain have been deemed neither scientifically nor constitutionally sound.

The Omnibus abortion bill, a final attempt to "clean up" several parts of abortion bills that didn't pass last year also failed. The bill also contained the failed fetal pain measure from this year.

As the session adjourned, Planned Parenthood released the following statement:

Tonight the Florida Legislature formally adjourned the 2012 Legislative Session without passing any legislation that would limit women’s access to essential health care services.

“We are encouraged that legislators put women’s health before politics by rejecting efforts to target health centers that provide the reproductive health care and family planning services that women need,” said Judith Selzer, Vice President for Public Policy at the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates.  “Given that Floridians continue to be plagued by the lagging economy and a growing lack of access to health care, legislators must continue to reject attempts to make it even harder for women to access health care services.”

This is not to say they won't be back at it next session. Outside of the legislature, there's also another attempt at the push for a "Personhood" amendment looming for 2014.

But at least for now, on the close of this year's legislative session, this is a win for women's health in Florida.