Tag: Allison Glass

Categories
News The Fly-By

Reproductive Rights Activists Fight to End Law Criminalizing Drug Use By Pregnant Women

For the next eight months, a coalition of women’s healthcare advocacy groups will be doing everything they can to ensure that SB 1391 — labeled the “Tennessee Pregnancy Criminalization Law” by its opponents — will ride into its sunset of expiration without any further legislative action.

The law, which allows women to be charged with assault for using illegal substances during pregnancy, was written in response to Tennessee’s rapidly increasing problem with infants born with Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome (NAS), which causes treatable, but painful, withdrawal symptoms in infants born to mothers who have abused substances during their pregnancy.

In an unusual move for a criminal statute, the bill included a sunset provision of two years. So the law, which went into effect last July, is set to expire in July 2016. At that time, legislators can consider whether or not to pass a more permanent version of the law.

While the intention of the law may have been to discourage expecting mothers from using addictive substances, some advocates and healthcare professionals insist that the law will tear families apart and criminalize already vulnerable mothers.

“In a lot of spheres, addiction is seen as a health issue, as a disease. But, now if you have a woman who is pregnant, all of the sudden she’s a criminal,” said Allison Glass, the state director for Healthy and Free Tennessee, a nonprofit coalition of groups dedicated to sexual health and reproductive issues.

On October 15th, Healthy and Free Tennessee, along with several coalition partners, met at the Memphis Gay and Lesbian Community Center to discuss their concern with the pregnancy criminalization law, as well as strategies to ensure its expiration. Memphis was one of five of the coalition’s stops across the state.

According to Glass, the law was written vaguely. Whether or not a mother is reported for her infant testing positive for illegal substances is up the discretion of the healthcare provider.

Further complicating the matter, the law was passed on the heels of the Safe Harbor Act, a piece of legislation designed to protect mothers from prosecution if they seek help for substance abuse of legally prescribed drugs. This means the difference between the possibility of treatment and the threat of jail lies in not only the type of drug but whether or not it was prescribed to the mother.

“We have a really imbalanced way of dealing with this issue,” Glass said. “It creates a second class of people who are pregnant.”

The Tennessee Department of Health began tracking reported cases of NAS in 2013. In the years since, more than half of all reported cases were caused by substances prescribed by the mother’s doctor.

Exactly how many Tennessee residents support, or even know about the law, is unclear. Glass believes that educating the public will be key to ensuring the law expires on its sunset date of July 1, 2016.

“We’re trying to help educate folks. It’s an incredibly complex issue. What we’re saying also is that medical experts, people in public health, and people who are experts in treatment facilities … those are the people who need to come together and think about what needs to happen to solve the problem,” Glass said. “This is not a place for our legislators to be passing a law and certainly not through the criminal justice system.”

Categories
News News Feature

What Happens Next?

If women have no access to abortion in Tennessee, what happens next?

What happens to women, pregnant as the result of rape, who don’t want to carry the trauma inside them for nine months? What happens to women who simply can’t afford another child – financially or emotionally?

Those who back the first constitutional amendment on the November 4th ballot do not want you to consider what happens next.

If Amendment 1 passes, Tennessee’s Republican-controlled legislature will enact enough abortion restrictions to make Roe v. Wade meaningless.

Whether it’s mandatory waiting periods or medically unnecessary hurdles for a procedure with a lower rate of complications than a colonoscopy, draconian measures adopted in other states would surely find a home here.

“If this passes, it opens the floodgates,” said Allison Glass, state director of Healthy and Free Tennessee, which promotes reproductive rights.

The fight over Amendment 1 exposes the hypocrisy of pro-fetus, anti-child conservatives who bark for smaller, less intrusive government while maneuvering their way into women’s personal affairs.

What the legislature won’t do is abandon a foolhardy commitment to abstinence-only sex ed in public schools, find money for universal pre-K, or persuade Governor Bill Haslam to save more than 800 lives annually by accepting federal money to expand Medicaid.

Here’s what the proposed amendment says: “Nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or require the funding of an abortion. The people retain the right through their elected state representatives and state senators to enact, amend, or repeal statutes regarding abortion, including, but not limited to, circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest or when necessary to save the life of the mother.”

You read that right. The decision to outlaw abortion even in the stomach-churning case of incest would be left in the hands of state legislators, 83 percent of whom are men.

That prospect worries Rebecca Terrell, executive director of the reproductive health center, Choices. Terrell spends a good bit of her time these days debunking “Yes on 1’s” talking points, which include the fact that 25 percent of abortions in Tennessee are performed on women who live out of state. 

In Mississippi, which has just one abortion provider, 2 percent of abortions were obtained by women who live out of state. The reason why women come to Tennessee to get an abortion is no different than the reason why children with cancer come from around the globe to St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital.

“They say it’s an abortion destination,” Terrell said. “It’s really a health-care destination.”

On Saturday, Terrell was among 200 people gathered in First Presbyterian Church’s parking lot for what was billed as a get out the vote rally, complete with a bounce house for kids and toe-tapping music. At a break in the music, “No on 1” field director Gail Tyree took to the stage and led the crowd in a call-and-response.

“All you need to know,” she yelled. “No on 1!” the crowd yelled back.

More energy, money (nearly $2 million raised so far), and national attention have been directed at the Amendment 1 battle than at any other constitutional amendment in recent history. Terrell and others are trying to be sure they stay on the right side of the line that prohibits 501(c)3s from lobbying.

A healthy roster of Christian ministers and other faith leaders, both white and black, are firmly in the “No on 1” camp.

“As people of faith, we are and should be concerned about the impact of any legislation that might limit access to basic needs for survival for people who are already at risk,” said Rev. Faye London, interfaith coordinator for SisterReach, a reproductive rights organization. “As I’ve traveled across the state, most of the clergy I’ve encountered, whether they’ve been able to say it out loud or not, feel the same way.”

London is careful not to directly advocate against Amendment 1, but is frank about the high stakes. Access to abortion, she says, is a basic need. “The ability to build the life that is going to be healthiest for you and your family is a basic need.”

A May poll by Vanderbilt University found that 71 percent of voters opposed giving the state legislature authority to regulate abortions.

A No vote on Amendment 1 gives women facing an unintended pregnancy, not legislators, the right to decide what happens next.

Categories
Calling the Bluff Music

Tennessee Pregnancy Law Could Adversely Impact Minorities, Low-Income Women

pregnancy_drug.jpg

For the next two years, pregnant women in Tennessee battling drug addiction will be in jeopardy of receiving up to 15 years in prison as a result of a new bill signed into law that criminalizes pregnancy outcomes.

In late April, Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam signed SB 1391 into law, which would permit the prosecution of pregnant women who suffer from drug addiction, if they give birth to babies born addicted to or harmed by their drug usage. By doing so, Tennessee became the first state to authorize the arrest and incarceration of women who use drugs while pregnant.

Many doctors, women’s rights groups, addiction specialists, and reproductive health groups spoke out about the potential negative effects of the law. A petition urging Haslam to veto the bill garnered more than 11,000 signatures.

Those efforts were unsuccessful, and on April 29th, Haslam signed the bill into law. It’s scheduled to take effect July 1st.

Among those outraged by Haslam’s decision were Healthy and Free Tennessee, a statewide coalition working to improve reproductive health and sexual freedom. Prior to the bill’s passing, the organization spearheaded a movement in opposition to the bill.

Now the organization is campaigning for lawmakers to come up with a better solution for the law, which has an expiration date of 2016.

“In technicality, [the law is] going to turn health care providers into prosecutors,” said Allison Glass, statewide organizer for Healthy and Free Tennessee. “They’re going to have to basically turn in their patients over to prosecutors, which is very scary, because it’s going to lead women to not get the prenatal health care that they desperately need. And it’s going to result in women lying to doctors. We’re also very concerned that it’s going to lead to women having unwanted abortions to avoid going to prison.”

There were initially two proposed bills that sought to criminally charge pregnant mothers responsible for giving birth to babies harmed or dependent upon drugs: HB 1519, which was sponsored by Rep. John DeBerry (D-Memphis) and SB 1391, which was sponsored by Sen. Reginald Tate (D-Memphis). However, DeBerry decided to pull his bill after receiving numerous messages from antagonists and further researching the detrimental impact it could have on families.

On the contrary, Tate’s bill was passed and signed into law. Women prosecuted under the law can be sentenced up to 15 years in prison.

The punitive action outlined within the bill states that drug-addicted pregnant women could be charged with assault if her child is born addicted to or harmed by a narcotic drug it was exposed to while in her womb.

The bill was amended: initially, it stated that pregnant women could be charged with homicide, if their baby died as a result of their drug addiction. Tate also added an affirmative defense clause, which will enable women who are penalized under the law to enroll in an addiction recovery program before the child is born, remain in the program after delivery, and successfully complete the program. They can use their treatment completion as an affirmative defense to prosecution if they give birth to a child that’s addicted to or harmed by the narcotic drug they used.

The only potential upside of the law is the fact that it would help combat the percentage of women who take illegal narcotics while pregnant. This could potentially lower the city’s percentage of babies born with birth defects and also decrease the local infant mortality rate, which is one of the highest in the nation.

Yet Glass doesn’t feel there’s any benefits to the law. She thinks that the penalization will do nothing to help the public health issue but simply destroy families, heighten health risks, and place a larger financial burden on taxpayers.

“More women going into the prison system. There’s nothing good about that,” Glass said. “It’s going to cost taxpayers so much more money for these women to be in the prison systems than if they were able to actually get the support and treatment they need, keep a job, keep their children, and be able to contribute to society. This is going to do the exact opposite of that.

“Women who are struggling with addiction, they need help. They need treatment. They need more services. They need more prenatal healthcare,” Glass said. “It’s very dangerous for a woman and for her baby to be using illegal narcotics while she’s pregnant. If people and these lawmakers really want to help protect these babies, they will implement a law to add more services available to women. This law does nothing to expand the treatment centers that are available to women. There is no fiscal amendment to this bill. There is no more money being funneled to the treatment centers. And treatment centers for drugs and addiction are already incredibly burdened with the number of people who are trying to use the facility.”

According to RH Reality Check, only two of Tennessee’s 177 addiction treatment facilities provide on-site prenatal care and allow older children to stay with their mothers. And only 19 facilities provide care that caters to pregnant women in particular.

In 2013, there were 921 babies born who experienced withdrawal symptoms from drugs their mothers used while pregnant, according to the Department of Health. Mothers addicted to prescription medications birthed more than 40 percent of the babies.

The state passed the Safe Harbor Act in 2013, which will enable pregnant women addicted to prescription drugs to enroll in treatment programs. The act will hinder Department of Child Services from taking their newborns along with any other children they may have and will also help them avoid incarceration.

But pregnant women who battle addiction to other narcotics, such as heroin, cocaine, marijuana, and crack, don’t qualify under the act. However, they do face stiff penalties under the pregnancy criminalization law.

Glass said she thinks the law is a ploy to negatively impact minority and lower-income families.

“It targets women who are using [drugs like] cocaine and meth and heroin, while women who are addicted to prescription drugs are not going to be affected by this law,” Glass said. “We see a huge disparity between how women are treated who are addicted to prescription drugs and how women are treated who are using illegal narcotics. We know that people who are addicted to prescription drugs are, in most cases, of a higher class. They have more resources, so we feel like this law is going to absolutely unfairly target poor women, women of color, and women who don’t have the resources to go to a pregnant treatment facility.”

Now that the law is scheduled to take form, Glass said Healthy and Free Tennessee would be assisting lawmakers in challenging the law and finding more effective ways to help women who use illegal drugs while pregnant.

“We certainly hope that there will be a legal challenge to the law, because there are definitely elements of it that are unconstitutional,” Glass said. “I hope that groups will work to repeal the law. And there is a sunset provision of 2016, which really speaks to the lawmakers feeling very unsure that this was the right thing to do by them only enacting it for two years. During these two years, we’re going to work very hard to help lawmakers come up with a better solution.”

Several calls were made to Sen. Tate with regard to the passage of SB 1391. He didn’t respond.

Follow me on Twitter: @Lou4President
Friend me on Facebook: Louis Goggans
Check out my website: ahumblesoul.com

Categories
News The Fly-By

Knocked Up and Locked Up?

CREDIT: Photowitch | Dreamstime.com

As they are currently written, two bills in the state legislature could lead to assault or criminal homicide charges for pregnant women who use illegal drugs.

But the sponsor of one of these bills (HB1519), Rep. John DeBerry (D-Memphis), vowed this week to work on his bill’s language so that there’s “no room or intent to simply incarcerate people rather than getting them the help they desperately need.”

The other bill, SB1391, is sponsored by Sen. Reginald Tate (D-Memphis), and it’s on the calendar to be heard in committee this week. Tate did not return calls to the Flyer for comment.

Critics of both bills, as they are written now, say they’re seeking to criminalize pregnant women and that the bills could have a negative effect on the care the baby receives.

“These women need supportive programs. Punitive measures will only make women not seek prenatal care. They will lie to their doctors [about their drug use], and it could lead to unwanted abortions by women who are afraid of getting prosecuted and convicted,” said Allison Glass, the statewide organizer for Healthy and Free Tennessee, which promotes reproductive health and sexual freedom.

It’s concerns like these that convinced DeBerry to give the bill another look. After meeting with Glass and hearing from others, he’s considering removing language that allows assault and criminal homicide charges. The bill was recommended to DeBerry by the Tennessee District Attorneys General Conference, but DeBerry said he doesn’t believe the district attorneys’ goal is to prosecute women.

“If those are the red flags in the bill for a lot of these women’s groups, then I’ll either take that out or I’ll take the bill off notice,” DeBerry said.

Last week, he rolled the bill. And now he says he’ll roll it again until the language is reworked.

“My sole intent is to save these women’s lives and those of their unborn children,” DeBerry said. “There is absolutely no intent on simply trying to incarcerate them. But some women’s groups were afraid, even with the drug court’s record, that someone will use this as some kind of stick against pregnant women.”

As it is written, DeBerry’s bill does allow a woman to avoid prosecution by attending and completing a long-term addiction recovery program either before the child is born or after delivery. He said drug court programs in most counties would be able to help women who could not afford to pay for drug treatment.

“This bill is seeking to protect the woman and the child,” DeBerry said. “It’s for when you have a person who obviously has emotional and psychological issues to the extent that they’re poisoning their own body and their child’s with these drugs.”

But Glass questions the effectiveness of drug treatment for women who are essentially forced into rehab.

“People who are familiar with addiction know that the addict has to make the choice to want to get help,” Glass said. “There’s a big question of how effective it is if you are forcing a person to go through a program.”

A change.org petition against both bills has garnered several hundred signatures as of press time. Karen D’Apolito of Nashville, vice-president of programs for the National Parinatal Association, opposes the bills as written and hopes to see more emphasis on treatment rather than criminal charges. She also said, despite popular belief, babies cannot be “born addicted.”

“If a baby has withdrawal, we can treat that,” D’Apolito said. “But babies cannot be born addicted. They’re exposed but not addicted.”