Creators: Pregnant Women Don't Belong in Prison

Matthew T. Mangino
Creators
April 29, 2024

The United States has the second highest rate worldwide of incarcerated women. In recent decades, there has been a dramatic increase in U.S. correctional population, and women are a rapidly growing segment of that population. The U.S. incarcerates about 65 out of every 100,000 women, according to The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.

Most women who are incarcerated are within their reproductive years, and many women are pregnant at reception. Nearly 4% of incarcerated women in the U.S. are pregnant; some reports estimate that there are approximately 58,000 pregnant women in jail or prison.

Pregnancy can be challenging to a mother and fetus under the best of circumstances. According to Johns Hopkins University, pregnant women are particularly vulnerable to life-threatening complications if not closely monitored by a physician. Now imagine if you are a pregnant woman in prison.

Nearly 50 years ago, the United States Supreme Court found that the U.S. Constitution requires prisons to provide medical care to inmates by holding that "deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners" violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.

However, prisons and jails continue to act with indifference to the care and treatment of pregnant prisoners. For instance, the use of restraints on pregnant women and women in labor appears to knowingly increase the risk of significant medical harm to the mother and unborn child.

Outside of the prison walls, the government and private businesses make a host of accommodations for pregnant and parenting women. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act is a federal statute that protects pregnant workers and requires covered employers to make job-related modifications for pregnant employees. The Act forbids employment discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth, or medical conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth.

When a family is expecting a new child, the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) provides equal leave for both the mother and father. Both, or either, covered parent, may take 12 weeks leave for the birth of a newborn. If both parents work in positions covered by the FMLA, they will both be entitled to leave. FMLA also provides leave for pregnancy-related health reasons.

In prison, the government is not so generous when it comes to pregnant women or women who have recently given birth. A significant majority of correctional facilities do not have on-site obstetric care; pregnant women are typically transported to community-based providers for prenatal care, and women in labor are transferred to medical facilities for delivery. Though policies vary by jurisdiction, during transport, labor, delivery and post-delivery, women are frequently shackled with handcuffs, leg irons and/or waist chains, reported AMA Journal of Ethics.

Shackling pregnant women being transported for or being provided medical treatment is a remnant of the institutions that, have for years, predominately housed men.

Prisons and jails are not equipped to properly care for pregnant women. For instance, pregnant women with mental health problems are advised to stop taking psychotropic drugs for bipolar, anxiety and depression. Obviously, confinement exacerbates their condition. Intensive mental health therapy must, but doesn't always, stand in the void.

Special nutritional concerns like seafood, foods not fully cooked or fruit and vegetables not properly cleaned put women and their babies at risk. Proper intake testing and evaluation, prenatal care and postpartum care, especially mental health care after separation from a newborn child, can go a long way toward protecting pregnant women and their newborn.

Pregnant women do not belong in prisons or jails, but until we get to the point where society can achieve an alternative — at a minimum cruel and unusual methods such as shackling women during prenatal care and childbirth must stop.

Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George P.C. His book "The Executioner's Toll, 2010" was released by McFarland Publishing. You can reach him at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter @MatthewTMangino.

To visit Creators CLICK HERE

Congressman Kelly's family business benefits by legislation he voted against

 A car dealership owned by family members of U.S. Rep. Mike Kelly of Butler is the recipient of a nearly $315,000 grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to install enough solar panels to power 25 homes, reported the Erie Times-News.

The grant program was funded by President Joe Biden's Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which Kelly, R-16th Dist., opposed because it was "loaded with bad policy and wasteful spending."

The allocation was listed in a USDA report of quarterly awards from its Rural Energy for America Program (REAP). The grant is being used at a Mike Kelly Automotive Group dealership in Uniontown, Pennsylvania, which is located in Fayette County in the congressional district of fellow Republican U.S. Rep. Guy Reschenthaler, R-14th Dist.

The grant allows the dealership to install a 261.9-kilowatt solar photovoltaic system, which is projected to save the family-owned business an estimated $27,300 a year.

To read more CLICK HERE

The first of Trump's much avoided criminal trials is finally underway in New York City

The former president refers to the four prosecutions he faces as “witch hunts” motivated by partisanship and part of a nefarious scheme to keep him from returning to the White House. opined the editorial board of The New York Times. Donald Trump has repeated this narrative even though the prosecutions have been brought by different prosecutors around the country, and even though different grand juries, each composed of a random selection of regular citizens in different states, handed up indictments that now total 88 felony charges against him.

In the weeks leading up to the start of this trial, Mr. Trump has argued, dishonestly, that the judge and the prosecutor have treated him unfairly, and that it will be impossible for him to get a fair trial in Manhattan because New Yorkers are biased against him. But the opening days of the trial, devoted to jury selection, have already demonstrated the great care and respect with which everyone involved in the trial, except for Mr. Trump, has treated the process. Joshua Steinglass, a member of the office of the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, told potential jurors on Tuesday that the case “has nothing to do with personal politics.”

“We don’t suggest you need to have been living under a rock for the last eight years, or the last 30 years,” he said. “We don’t expect you not to have heard about this, or not to have discussed this case with friends. What we do need is for you to keep an open mind.”

Dozens of potential jurors took those instructions seriously and admitted they could not be impartial. One man was excused from service after telling the judge that it was “going to be hard for me to be impartial,” since many of his family members and friends were Republicans. Justice Juan Merchan, the judge overseeing the trial, excused him, as other potential jurors stepped up. So far, seven jurors have been seated. At least two potential jurors were dismissed by the judge because of social media posts.

If anything, Justice Merchan has exhibited an extra degree of tolerance for Mr. Trump’s strategy of systematically attacking the legitimacy of the courts and court officials through repeated verbal outbursts and countless legal motions and other attempts to delay his trials. In the New York case, Mr. Trump received a short extension last month when federal prosecutors found a tranche of documents that had not been turned over to the defense team. In the week before the start of the trial, he filed three emergency appeals in three days, as The Times reported, including a civil action against the judge, which were quickly rejected by an appeals court.

The fact that he was able to have each of these motions fully considered is evidence of the justice system operating as it should, with deliberation and due process. Especially in criminal prosecutions, courts take the legal rights of litigants very seriously, to ensure that defendants receive fair trials. An appeals court is still considering Mr. Trump’s request to throw out a gag order that prevents him from verbally attacking witnesses, prosecutors or the judge’s family, but it will not delay the trial before the ruling. (Mr. Trump is not prevented from publicly criticizing the judge.)

In the other criminal cases against him, Mr. Trump has also been able to take full advantage of every legal protection available to him as a defendant.

He appealed his federal prosecution related to the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol on the grounds that he enjoys absolute immunity for actions he took as president. This argument has been rejected by every judge to consider it. Still, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal later this month, delaying the start of his trial in that case indefinitely, and possibly until after the election. While the Supreme Court weighs his immunity claim, the trial judge in the federal Jan. 6 case, Tanya Chutkan, put the proceedings on hold. In the other federal prosecution, on charges of illegally withholding highly classified national-security documents, Mr. Trump has had numerous favorable rulings from the judge handling that case.

The election-interference case out of Georgia was delayed by an extensive hearing on a possible conflict of interest for the lead prosecutor, Fani Willis, who had been in a romantic relationship with Nathan Wade, an outside prosecutor she hired to lead the case. After taking testimony from a series of witnesses, the judge decided Ms. Willis could remain on the case, but not with Mr. Wade. (Mr. Wade ultimately withdrew.) Mr. Trump appealed that decision, which the Georgia Court of Appeals is now considering.

The ability to file such appeals, successful or not, is essential to how the law functions in the United States. Despite having benefited from its protections, to Mr. Trump, the rule of law is nothing more than an obstacle to be overcome, an instrument of power to use at will.

Mr. Trump’s vision of an American legal system that protects his interests goes beyond his trial, of course, and extends in particular to the Justice Department. He has been explicit about his desire, if elected in November, to bring the Justice Department more fully under his control, to use it to protect his friends and, more important, punish his enemies. As president, Mr. Trump had an unparalleled record of abusing presidential pardons, and if he is re-elected, he appears likely to order the Justice Department to drop the criminal cases against him or to try to pardon himself for potential crimes. To Mr. Trump, independent prosecutors and Justice Department officials are precisely the problem. They will say no to him when he wants to do things that are illegal or unconstitutional, choosing to be faithful to the Constitution rather than to him. This Mr. Trump cannot abide.

Mr. Trump has said he intends to find a prosecutor to “go after” Mr. Biden and his family, suggesting that he intends to pursue prosecution with little regard to evidence or facts. According to The Washington Post, he also wants to investigate figures in his administration whom he perceives as being disloyal to him, including John Kelly, his former chief of staff; William Barr, his former attorney general; and Gen. Mark Milley, the former chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. (Mr. Trump has separately suggested General Milley should be executed for treason.)

As Mr. Kelly told The Post, “There is no question in my mind he is going to go after people that have turned on him.”

Mr. Trump has also repeatedly said that his prosecution is like no other. In fact, there are numerous examples of politicians, of both parties, who faced prosecution, and in some cases were convicted, during their candidacies. The former Texas governor Rick Perry, a Republican, ran for president in 2016 while under indictment for abuse of power. (Those charges were later dismissed.) Senator Robert Menendez, a Democrat of New Jersey, was indicted on federal bribery charges, and may run for re-election as an independent.

The former president is singular in one respect: As much as he accuses others of warping the justice system, he is the one who consistently demeans and disparages the role of the courts and the exercise of due process. The leaders of the Republican Party, echoing the views of Mr. Trump’s fervent base of followers, have fallen in line behind him, indicating that they will continue to support his candidacy even if he is a convicted felon.

To read more CLICK HERE

Trump criminal trial: Week two wrap up of porn star/hush money trial

 The second week of Donald Trump’s Manhattan criminal trial was dominated by four days of testimony by David Pecker, the former publisher of The National Enquirer, who detailed his efforts to safeguard Mr. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, reported The New York Times.

Mr. Pecker, a longtime associate of the former president, talked at length about a “catch and kill” scheme that he said he had entered into with Mr. Trump and his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, during a 2015 meeting at Trump Tower. The publisher said he would purchase the rights to unsavory stories he had no intention of running.

His testimony also teed up the story of Stormy Daniels, a porn star who claims to have had sex with Mr. Trump in 2006 and received a hush-money payment in the days before the 2016 election, a deal at the center of the case.

Mr. Trump is charged with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in an effort to conceal the payment. If convicted, he could face four years in prison. Mr. Trump has pleaded not guilty and denied that he had sex with Ms. Daniels.

The week also brought more accusations that Mr. Trump had violated a gag order prohibiting him from attacking witnesses, prosecutors and jurors. Justice Juan M. Merchan has not ruled on the prosecution’s request to hold Mr. Trump in contempt, and said he would hold another hearing next Thursday to address allegations of new violations.

Here’s what happened during the second week, and eighth day, of Mr. Trump’s trial:

Opening statements displayed dueling strategies.

Prosecutors and defense lawyers presented dueling portraits of Mr. Trump’s actions.

Prosecutors sketched a secret scheme to influence the 2016 election. They said Mr. Trump directed men in his inner circle to suppress negative stories about him and then agreed to cover up the payment to Ms. Daniels after taking the White House. 

A former tabloid titan opened the case.

Mr. Pecker testified that he was the “eyes and ears” of the Trump campaign, keeping a lookout for unflattering stories.

He detailed a deal with a former doorman of a Manhattan building managed by the Trump Organization who said that Mr. Trump had fathered a child out of wedlock. Despite the story being false, Mr. Pecker said the tabloid paid him $30,000 to prevent embarrassment.

Mr. Pecker also spoke about a deal with Karen McDougal, a former Playboy model who said she had an affair with Mr. Trump, an allegation that he denies. Ms. McDougal was paid $150,000, but Mr. Pecker said he had no intention of publishing anything about the affair.

After two payouts, Mr. Pecker said he had been unwilling to buy a third story: Ms. Daniels’s account of a sexual encounter with Mr. Trump.

How the tabloid sausage was made.

During their cross-examination of Mr. Pecker, Mr. Trump’s lawyers set out to show that such deals were “standard operating procedure” in the tabloid business, and that only about half of all stories purchased made it to print.

One of the defendant’s lawyers, Emil Bove, pushed Mr. Pecker about the real purpose of the deal with Ms. McDougal, whether her top priority was money and whether the agreement had other benefits for her. Mr. Pecker conceded that dozens of articles were published under her name.

But Mr. Pecker later testified that the agreement’s real purpose had been to bury the story of the affair.

Trump continued to speak out.

Mr. Trump has been subdued compared with his appearances at civil trials in Manhattan, where he was known to mutter loudly and twice stormed out.

But occasionally his frustration was apparent. He once shook his head vigorously as Mr. Pecker testified.

When he left the courtroom, Trump lashed out at the case against him, veering into territory potentially prohibited by Justice Merchan’s gag order. 

Next week may offer more drama, if fewer days.

Friday ended with few fireworks. Mr. Trump’s former executive assistant, Rhona Graff, testified briefly, identifying entries from the Trump Organization’s computer system that contained contact information for Ms. McDougal and Ms. Daniels.

Prosecutors also called Gary Farro, a banker who helped Mr. Cohen open an account that he used for the $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels. Mr. Farro’s testimony is expected to continue next week.

It is not clear who will testify after Mr. Farro, but the weeks ahead could include Mr. Cohen, Ms. Daniels and Hope Hicks, Mr. Trump’s former White House communications director.

Monday is an off day for the court, as is Wednesday. Mr. Trump will use the midweek break to campaign in Wisconsin and Michigan, two battleground states in this year’s election. He is the presumptive Republican nominee.

To read more CLICK HERE  

The 'weapons effect': The lethal combination of guns and aggressive driving

Road rage shootings are on the rise across the United States as drivers increasingly turn to firearms to vent their frustrations — with often tragic consequences,  reported The Trace.

Between 2014 and 2023, the number of people shot in road rage incidents surged more than 400 percent, from 92 to 481, according to a Trace analysis of data from the nonprofit Gun Violence Archive. All told, angry drivers shot 3,095 people over that decade, or nearly one every day. One in four of those people — 777 — were killed.

Law enforcement agencies do not release statistics on road rage shootings as a specific category of crime. But GVA tracks incidents in which someone in a car fires at a driver or passenger in another vehicle or brandishes a gun in a threatening manner. The close of 2023 marked the collection of 10 full years of data, and although not all gun-related road rage incidents make the news or are reported to police, GVA provides the most comprehensive picture of gun violence on the nation’s roads and highways. 

Since 2014, gun-involved road rage incidents have more than doubled, and the number of victims killed or injured has increased more than fivefold, the data shows. When we looked specifically at shootings — incidents in which either a victim or suspect was shot — the increase is even more consistent. The number of road rage shootings tracked by GVA increased by an average of 23 percent each year over the past decade. 

Someone was shot in a road rage incident on average every 18 hours in 2023, up from once every four days in 2014.

These shootings are happening in almost every corner of the country. Many are prompted by collisions or motorists cutting each other off in traffic, while the motivations for others aren’t always clear. 

Studies have shown that the presence of a gun can impel some people to act more aggressively. 

“Although guns don’t directly cause violence, they dramatically increase the likelihood that any situation involving conflict will be lethal,” Brad Bushman, an Ohio State University communications professor who researches aggression and violence, told The Trace in 2022, when we first examined guns and road rage. “Imagine you’re in a car and somebody cuts you off. If there’s no gun in your car, maybe you flip them off. And if there’s a gun in your car, maybe you shoot them.”

Bushman and his team authored an oft-cited 2017 study that examined this phenomenon, dubbed the “weapons effect,” in drivers. The researchers assembled a group of drivers and placed either a black Airsoft gun or a tennis racket next to them in the passenger seat. They found that people sitting next to the replica gun were more likely to engage in aggressive driving behaviors like tailgating and speeding.

Bushman said there’s a body of research dating back more than 80 years showing that aggression is fueled by frustration. “Frustration means somebody blocks your goal,” Bushman said. “When you’re in a car, you have a definite goal — to get from point A to point B as fast as you can. Anything that interferes or blocks that goal can increase the likelihood that you’ll behave aggressively.”

To read more CLICK HERE

SCOTUS readies for argument on Trump's immunity claim

The United States Supreme Court will hear Trump v U.S. arguments today. A high court ruling will determine whether former president Donald Trump is entitled to immunity from federal prosecution or if he can be tried on criminal charges for his conspiracy to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.  

To read more CLICK HERE

Mangino joins Julie Grant on Court TV

Watch my interview with Julie Grant on Court TV to discuss the case of Leilani Simon accused of murdering her son Quinton.

To watch the interview CLICK HERE and CLICK HERE