For my final draft, I ended up getting a "B-" on my HCP. While I improved my argument from the first draft, the organization was still messy throughout my final submission. I focused too much on the big picture and forgot about the little things like transitions between paragraphs and presenting my evidence in an order that makes sense. You offered a lot of comments about the structure of my essay:

This collage of your comments shows that while my HCP had good content, I still failed to present it in a clear and well-organized manner.

In the first week's self-assessment, I mentioned that organization is an aspect of writing that I really struggle with, and this is evident throughout all the drafts of my project. The HCP was pretty difficult for me because it was the first huge assignment we had for the class. However, I tried not to let my grade discourage me because it could have been a lot worse; I was just glad that I passed. I decided not to dwell on it and do better next time. I paid close attention to the constructive criticism I received from you and my peers and made sure to focus on that for the AP. Eventually I learned from my mistakes because I definitely improved my organizational skills the second time around in the Advocacy Project.  

Incarcerated Mothers

In 2003, Shawanna Nelson was convicted of identity fraud and writing bad checks. With a baby on the way, she was sentenced to 6 years in prison at the McPherson Unit in Arkansas and would soon give birth under inhumane circumstances. While in prison, Shawanna had been in labor for more than 12 hours before she finally arrived at Newport Hospital. Her story was reported by New York Times journalist and Yale graduate Adam Liptak, who revealed that during these 12 hours, officers only gave her Tylenol to relieve the pain from her contractions. Despite being charged for a nonviolent crime, prison guards chained her arms and legs to the hospital bed and refused to unshackle her in spite of the doctor’s orders. This traumatizing experience left Shawanna with permanent spinal damage and ultimately demonstrates the extremely punitive nature of the American criminal justice system (New York Times, 2006).

All over the country, there are many women like Shawanna Nelson who experience such disturbing circumstances. Shackling is a widespread practice in the U.S., and as of 2015, there are only 22 states that have laws prohibiting the use of shackles on women during labor, which means that half of the country still permits the restraining of pregnant inmates during childbirth (Correctional Association of New York, 2015). While these laws are a step in the right direction, the illegal shackling of pregnant women still continues, as the implementation of such legislation presents challenges that have yet to be confronted. Because most women in prison were convicted for nonviolent crimes, the use of restraints on a large majority of pregnant prisoners for security purposes is not justified. Moreover, women in labor are hindered by medical conditions associated with childbirth that immobilizes them and prevents escape; thus, shackling serves as a mechanism of social control on female inmates and further demonstrates that once someone is labeled a criminal, they are no longer treated like a human being.

In the United States, there are more women held in state prisons and county jails today than at any other time in history. Though women comprise of a small portion of the prison population, the growth in the incarceration rate for women has outpaced that for men in the last 30 years, rising from 13,258 in 1980 to 113,605 in 2012 (The Sentencing Project, 2012). As reported by Sarah Yager, senior associate editor at The Atlantic, the majority of women in prison today were convicted for low-level drug offenses rather than violent crimes, and a significant amount were caught up in larger conspiracy prosecutions involving husbands, boyfriends, or acquaintances they previously associated with  (The Atlantic, 2015). Less than half of all female inmates have been convicted of a violent offense, indicating that many of these incarcerated women are serving time under mandatory sentences for drug related crimes. For example, according to scholar Regina Cardaci, in 1973, Governor Nelson Rockefeller enacted new drug laws which established mandatory minimum sentences for the possession of controlled substances. Under these laws, the penalty for possessing 500 mg of a controlled substance was one year in prison. Since the inception of the Rockefeller drug laws, the number of women convicted for drug offenses in New York has increased by almost 800% (Cardaci, 2). Currently there are over 205,000 women behind bars in the United States. More than 80,000 are mothers, and about 12,000 are pregnant in custody (American Civil Liberties Union, 2012).  The rising female incarceration rates have led to the increased need for reproductive rights and prenatal health care for female inmates, as pregnancy and childbirth are specific aspects of parenting only experienced by women.

The health care of incarcerated women has been neglected largely because males constitute the majority of the prison population, and correctional institutions have been structured to meet the needs of male prisoners. For example, criminologist Meda Chesney-Lind suggests that “little or no thought was given to the possibility of a female prisoner until she appeared at the door of the institution. It was as though crime and punishment existed in a world in which gender equaled male” (Ocen, 5). In other words, there has not been nearly enough attention to women in prison, let alone pregnant women, and this has led to inadequate reproductive health care for female inmates as a whole. Throughout the United States, the practice of shackling is permitted with the exception of 22 states (Correctional Association of New York, 2012). Pregnant inmates are handcuffed during transport from correctional institutions to the hospital and restrained to the bed with leg chains or wrist chains once admitted to a medical facility. The origin of shackling can be traced back to prehistoric times, with the earliest references appearing in the Bible; however, it remains unclear exactly when United States prisons began the use of restraints on pregnant women. Regina Cardaci writes that the introduction of “gender-neutral” policies in the 1970s in response to civil rights and women’s rights movements allowed for nonviolent female offenders to be “treated in much the same way as violent male felons, which meant that they were shackled during hospitalization for any reason, including labor and delivery” (2). Today, women are routinely shackled during childbirth for security purposes despite being charged for nonviolent crimes. One pregnant inmate of Cook County Jail in Illinois was charged for a drug offense and stated that she had never tried to escape and was not classified as a high level security inmate. Nevertheless, she was handcuffed on the way to the hospital and placed in leg shackles during labor. She described:

“I was given an epidural, and I carefully moved into a sitting position while dealing with the leg iron. While the needle was still in my back, I felt a strong contraction and I knew that the baby was coming. When I told the nurse, she told me not to push and said that the baby wasn’t coming yet. I asked for the doctor and worked the leg chain around so that I could lay down again. The doctor came and said that yes, this baby is coming right now, and started to prepare the bed for delivery. Because I was shackled to the bed, they couldn’t remove the lower part of the bed for the delivery, and they couldn’t put my feet in the stirrups. My feet were still shackled together, and I couldn’t get my legs apart. The doctor called for the officer, but the offer had gone down the hall. No one else could unlock the shackles, and my baby was coming but I couldn’t open my legs” (Amnesty International, 3).

Another inmate imprisoned for shoplifting in Illinois recounts her experience of giving birth as a prisoner:

“Imagine being shackled to a metal bedpost, excruciating pains going through my body, and not being able to adjust myself to even try to feel any type of comfort, trying to move and with each turn having hard, cold metal restraining my movements. Not only was this painful, it was traumatizing, and very stressful for myself and also for my child… Even animals would not be shackled during labor, a household dog or a cow on a farm… The birth of a child is supposed to be a joyous experience, and I was robbed of the joy of my daughter’s birth…” (Amnesty International, 3).

According to scholar and University of Minnesota Law School graduate Jenni Vainik, shackling pregnant inmates during labor poses many health risks for women and their babies. During the delivery, “shackles hamper a woman’s ability to move to alleviate pain. The resulting stress on the woman’s body may decrease the flow of oxygen to the fetus, causing irreparable damage,” furthermore, “leg shackles tend to inhibit a woman’s recovery, as many experts recommend walking to rehabilitate the muscles after a delivery” (9).  Shackling reaps permanent negative consequences on the mother and child that are not justified by any valid penological interest, especially if the inmate is a nonviolent offender. Because most women in prison are convicted for drug crimes, they are not the type of criminals that implicate security concerns, therefore shackling serves as another form of social control that reflects and reinforces complicated ideas about incarcerated women in the United States, such as the public perception that female criminals are viewed as “bad mothers” undeserving to be pregnant and give birth in the first place (The Atlantic, 2015). Priscilla Ocen, an Associate Professor of Law at Loyola Law School, argues that “the shackling of pregnant prisoners appears as a manifestation of the punishment of ‘unfit’ or ‘undesirable’ women for exercising the choice to become mothers” (5, 6). These pregnancy specific patterns of social control offer important insights into our culture’s values and preoccupations when it comes to the American criminal justice system and reveal that once a woman is labeled a felon, she is no longer worthy of inherent liberties, such as the right to conceive and raise a child.

Though extensive research has shown that shackling poses serious health hazards for pregnant women, supporters of the practice still attempt to justify its continued use. Steve Patterson, a spokesman for the Cook County Sheriff’s Office in Illinois, asserts that the use of shackles is needed because “we have to bring inmates to the same area that the general public comes to” (Nation Inside, 2013). Patterson further emphasizes the safety of other patients in the hospital, stating, “if you’re laying [sick] in hospital bed, and in the next hospital bed is a woman who’s in on a double murder charge, because she’s pregnant she shouldn’t be handcuffed to the side of the bed – I think if you’re the person laying [sick] in bed next to her you might disagree” (Nation Inside, 2013). The justifications for shackling are unpersuasive, as the vast majority of women in United States correctional facilities are nonviolent offenders, and therefore pose a low security risk. Other supporters defend shackling on the premise that it prevents pregnant prisoners from attempting to escape. One officer comments, “basically, we don’t want them to escape – that’s the bottom line” (National Inside, 2013). However, the fact that armed guards are usually present while the inmate gives birth, medical conditions immobilize women from traveling far, and most modern hospitals have sufficient security systems raises further skepticism about whether or not shackles are truly necessary to prevent escape (Vainik, 9). There are plenty other forms of security to ensure that an inmate does not escape; thus, shackling occurs due to “an unjustified animus toward pregnant women, rather than any valid security concerns” (Vainik, 9).

In the United States, many laws have been passed outlawing the use of restraints on pregnant women during and after labor. In one instance in 2009, the Anti-Shackling Bill was passed in New York after many cases of shackling, including Shawanna Nelson’s, were brought to court. The New York senate passed a new law, prohibiting the inhumane practice of shackling pregnant inmates who are in labor. The bill prohibits state and local institutions from using restraints on a pregnant inmate who is transported for childbirth, during labor and delivery, and in post-natal recovery, with an exception made under “extraordinary circumstances” where restraints may be used if the inmate is a danger to herself or the medical and correctional staff (The New York State Senate, 2009). In these instances, a pregnant woman may be cuffed only by one wrist. Similar laws have been enacted throughout the country such as Chapter 608 of California’s Penal Codes and Chapter 127 of Massachusetts General Laws. However, despite the adoption of anti-shackling legislation, many women are still shackled immediately after giving birth and during their trips to and from the hospital. Tamar Kraft-Stolar, the director of the Women in Prison Project, interviewed “27 women who had given birth after the 2009 [New York] law went into effect and 23 of those 27 women had been shackled at some point in violation of the law” (Gebreyes, Huffington Post, 2016). The violation of these laws points to larger problems of prison facilities in the United States as a whole, revealing that such laws are not properly enforced by state authorities. Kraft-Stolar adds, “there’s so little oversight. There’s so little public accountability. And then you have, piled on that, this widespread dehumanization and lack of public sympathy. All of those are a recipe for laws not being followed” (Gebreyes, Huffington Post, 2016). There is no accreditation that requires correctional facilities to demonstrate adherence to recognized standards of health care; hence, law enforcement officials are able to break the law and illegally shackle women despite anti-shackling bills. This goes to show that there are loopholes in anti-shackling laws, thus rendering them essentially useless. There are inherent rights that protect all people, including inmates, and such rights are not being properly exercised. Though certain freedoms are taken away in prison, being in a correctional facility does not cancel a woman’s basic right to humanity.

Laws and policies intended to meet the needs of incarcerated women are meaningful only if those responsible for enforcing them are properly trained and educated. The modern treatment of female inmates continues to reflect punitive practices that actively deny a woman’s reproductive and parental rights. While misleading prison policies may have irreparably harmed Shawanna Nelson, it is not too late to avoid further tragedies by implementing real progressive changes that hold correctional facilities accountable and recognize the reality of incarcerated women’s lives.