Objectives. To collect national data on pregnancy frequencies and outcomes among women in US state and federal prisons. Methods. From 2016 to 2017, we prospectively collected 12 months of pregnancy statistics from a geographically diverse sample of 22 state prison systems and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Prisons reported numbers of pregnant women, births, miscarriages, abortions, and other outcomes. Results. Overall, 1396 pregnant women were admitted to prisons; 3.8% of newly admitted women and 0.6% of all women were pregnant in December 2016. There were 753 live births (92% of outcomes), 46 miscarriages (6%), 11 abortions (1%), 4 stillbirths (0.5%), 3 newborn deaths, and no maternal deaths. Six percent of live births were preterm and 30% were cesarean deliveries. Distributions of outcomes varied by state. Conclusions. Our study showed that the majority of prison pregnancies ended in live births or miscarriages. Our findings can enable policymakers, researchers, and public health practitioners to optimize health outcomes for incarcerated pregnant women and their newborns, whose health has broad sociopolitical implications.
We describe how mass incarceration directly undermines the core values of reproductive justice and how this affects incarcerated and nonincarcerated women. Mass incarceration, by its very nature, compromises and undermines bodily autonomy and the capacity for incarcerated people to make decisions about their reproductive well-being and bodies; this is done through institutionalized racism and is disproportionately done to the bodies of women of color. This violates the most basic tenets of reproductive justice—the right to have a child, not to have a child, and to parent the children you have with dignity and in safety. By undermining motherhood and safe pregnancy care, denying access to abortion and contraception, and preventing people from parenting their children at all and by doing so in overpoliced, unsafe environments, mass incarceration has become a driver of forms of reproductive oppression for people in prison and jails and in the community.
The risk of PID in women receiving IUDs was low. These results support IUD insertion protocols in which clinicians test women for N gonorrhea and C trachomatis based on risk factors and perform the test on the day of insertion. These findings have potential to reduce barriers to IUD use for women seeking highly effective, long-term, reversible contraception.
Background Carceral facilities are epicenters of the COVID-19 pandemic, placing incarcerated people at an elevated risk of COVID-19 infection. Due to the initial limited availability of COVID-19 vaccines in the United States, all states have developed allocation plans that outline a phased distribution. This study uses document analysis to compare the relative prioritization of incarcerated people, correctional staff, and other groups at increased risk of COVID-19 infection and morbidity. Methods and findings We conducted a document analysis of the vaccine dissemination plans of all 50 US states and the District of Columbia using a triple-coding method. Documents included state COVID-19 vaccination plans and supplemental materials on vaccine prioritization from state health department websites as of December 31, 2020. We found that 22% of states prioritized incarcerated people in Phase 1, 29% of states in Phase 2, and 2% in Phase 3, while 47% of states did not explicitly specify in which phase people who are incarcerated will be eligible for vaccination. Incarcerated people were consistently not prioritized in Phase 1, while other vulnerable groups who shared similar environmental risk received this early prioritization. States’ plans prioritized in Phase 1: prison and jail workers (49%), law enforcement (63%), seniors (65+ years, 59%), and long-term care facility residents (100%). Conclusions This study demonstrates that states’ COVID-19 vaccine allocation plans do not prioritize incarcerated people and provide little to no guidance on vaccination protocols if they fall under other high-risk categories that receive earlier priority. Deprioritizing incarcerated people for vaccination misses a crucial opportunity for COVID-19 mitigation. It also raises ethical and equity concerns. As states move forward with their vaccine distribution, further work must be done to prioritize ethical allocation and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines to incarcerated people.
Incarcerated women report high rates of prior unintended pregnancies as well as low contraceptive use. Because jail could be a site of contraception care, this study aimed to assess women's access to contraception prior to their arrest. A cross-sectional survey was administered to 228 reproductive-aged, nonpregnant women arrested in San Francisco. Twenty-one percent were currently using contraception. More than half (61%) had not used contraception in the last year, yet 11% wanted to have used it. Women in this latter subset reported greater difficulty with payment, finding a clinic, and transportation compared to women who had used contraception. In addition, 60% of all women in the sample would accept contraception if offered to them in jail. Thus, jail is a potentially important and acceptable point of access to contraception, which can circumvent some preincarceration logistical barriers.
Objectives: The objective of this study was to explore perceptions and experiences of immediate postpartum long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) counseling and decision-making, with a focus on reproductive autonomy. We aimed to assess the potential for reproductive coercion. Study design: This was a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with Spanish and English speaking women who received an intrauterine device or contraceptive subdermal implant immediately postpartum. They were recruited before discharge from two hospitals in Baltimore, MD. We analyzed interviews using directed content analysis. Results: We interviewed a diverse group of 17 women. Participants praised the convenience of LARC and the ease of immediate postpartum placement. Some women reported feeling pushed by providers during counseling and were critical of their experiences. Women expressed a desire for comprehensive, objective information early and often during antepartum contraceptive counseling, and some valued counseling from multiple providers. They wanted autonomy in their contraceptive decision-making and described making internally motivated decisions based on their life goals and individual priorities. Conclusions: Some women felt pressured to choose immediate postpartum LARC, while others expressed enthusiasm for immediate postpartum LARC. Our data suggest that providers should start contraceptive counseling early in prenatal care and readdress it at multiple visits. Patients may benefit from speaking with multiple providers. Implications: Our study supports immediate postpartum LARC as a favorable contraceptive option for some women when discussed during prenatal care. Providers should take care to avoid coercion during counseling and focus on delivering comprehensive, objective information about all contraceptive methods, including side effects and removal options.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.