An Arizona Prison Is Requiring Inductions for Pregnant Inmates
"Just because I made some bad choices in my life, they shouldn't be allowed to make bad health choices for me and my baby," said one woman whose labor was induced against her will.

Arizona prisons are reportedly inducing the labor of incarcerated pregnant women—whether they like it or not. According to a recent investigation from The Arizona Republic, three women incarcerated in Perryville prison in Buckeye, Arizona, reported having their labor induced as a matter of prison policy, even though all three wanted to go into labor spontaneously.
While induction at term is generally safe, the women interviewed by The Arizona Republic reported that having labor induced against their will led to significantly longer time spent in labor, with one inmate alleging she experienced more physical pain during recovery when compared with previous deliveries.
"Just because I made some bad choices in my life, they shouldn't be allowed to make bad health choices for me and my baby," one woman told the paper.
Two of the three women who spoke to The Republic reported having their labor induced at 39 weeks, and another reported having labor induced at 37 weeks during two separate pregnancies. Induction at 37 weeks is generally only recommended when it is medically necessary, such as when a pregnant woman has gestational diabetes or high blood pressure. While all three women ultimately delivered safely, they reported that the experience of having yet another form of bodily autonomy taken from them was rattling.
"It's a lot more active labor, which means a lot more contractions, and harder contractions," one woman told The Arizona Republic.
The women were allegedly told that mandatory induction was prison policy, with one incarcerated woman telling reporters that a prison obstetrician told her that "they induce everyone because they don't want anyone going into labor here." According to The Republic, prison officials did not respond to questions about policies regarding pregnant prisoners, nor did Centurion, Arizona's prison healthcare contractor in use while the women were incarcerated. NaphCare, Arizona's current healthcare contractor denied having a policy of mandatory inductions.
While Arizona has enacted basic legal protections for pregnant prisoners since 2021, following the passage of the Dignity for Incarcerated Women Act, which banned the shackling of pregnant prisoners during childbirth and required that incarcerated women have at least 72 hours with their newborn, the bill does not contain protections against forced induction.
According to some civil rights groups, this practice likely stems from chronic understaffing in many prisons. "It's another example of how medical practices are dictated by the lack of health care and custody staff," Corene Kendrick, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union's National Prison Project told The Arizona Republic. "If they had enough nurses and custody officers on-site 24/7, they could implement best practices."
It is unclear if forcibly inducing pregnant women in prison is widely practiced outside of Perryville. In this case, the autonomy-denying policy appears to be an attempt to prevent a possibly worse outcome—that of a woman giving birth alone in her cell, which has happened in Perryville at least once before. In 2019, a severely mentally ill woman went into labor but was reportedly ignored for hours after she and the other women in nearby cells screamed and banged on the doors of their cells, trying to get help. The woman ultimately delivered a baby in her cell's toilet.
While preventing women from deciding how they give birth can cause serious emotional distress, as documented by The Arizona Republic, it makes a perverse kind of sense for prison officials—and for many incarcerated women, as even an unwanted induction is likely better than running the risk of having an unattended, unmedicated birth in a prison cell.
For pregnant inmates, there are no good options. While forced induction is a major violation of bodily autonomy, prisons in Arizona have also been guilty of serious neglect when women go into labor. Forced induction seems to be an attempt to prevent this horrifying outcome, while simultaneously creating another violation of a pregnant inmate's autonomy.
As one woman told The Arizona Republic, "I'm quite used to the prison making all these decisions for us because we are still state property."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Could your headline be any more cryptic? "Inductions of labor" or "that labor be induced". I really didn't understand.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I'm now creating over $35,300 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,400 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link------------------------------------>>> http://Www.RichApp1.Com
Why not allow these women to stay home with some kind of monitoring system and access to their own doctors until they give birth and maybe until the baby is a few months old? That would be cheaper and more humane. I doubt many of them are in prison for violent crimes either, so why not just let them stay home under supervision the whole time.
Why not allow male prisoners paternity leave?
How about they pinky swear to be good citizens and go about their day? And you sure you want to turn conjugal visits into a get out of jail free pass?
Sᴛᴀʀᴛ ᴡᴏʀᴋɪɴɢ ғʀᴏᴍ ʜᴏᴍᴇ! Gʀᴇᴀᴛ ᴊᴏʙ ғᴏʀ sᴛᴜᴅᴇɴᴛs, sᴛᴀʏ-ᴀᴛ-ʜᴏᴍᴇ ᴍᴏᴍs ᴏʀ ᴀɴʏᴏɴᴇ ɴᴇᴇᴅɪɴɢ ᴀɴ ᴇxᴛʀᴀ ɪɴᴄᴏᴍᴇ… Yᴏᴜ ᴏɴʟʏ ɴᴇᴇᴅ ᴀ ᴄᴏᴍᴘᴜᴛᴇʀ ᴀɴᴅ ᴀ ʀᴇʟɪᴀʙʟᴇ ɪɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ ᴄᴏɴɴᴇᴄᴛɪᴏɴ… Mᴀᴋᴇ $80 ʜᴏᴜʀʟʏ ᴀɴᴅ ᴜᴘ ᴛᴏ $13000 ᴀ ᴍᴏɴᴛʜ ʙʏ ғᴏʟʟᴏᴡɪɴɢ ʟɪɴᴋ ᴀᴛ ᴛʜᴇ ʙᴏᴛᴛᴏᴍ ᴀɴᴅ sɪɢɴɪɴɢ ᴜᴘ… Yᴏᴜ ᴄᴀɴ ʜᴀᴠᴇ ʏᴏᴜʀ ғɪʀsᴛ ᴄʜᴇᴄᴋ ʙʏ ᴛʜᴇ ᴇɴᴅ ᴏғ ᴛʜɪs ᴡᴇᴇᴋ:) GOOD LUCK.:)
.
.
See this article for more information————————>>>GOOGLE WORK
So you think cheaper for her to have child delivery paid by taxpayer while free instead of having it paid for by taxpayer while in prison? hahahahahahaha
It's weird how much 4th (or whatever) Wave Feminism resembles Goldilocks And The 3 Bears.
I don't see how this is anything-wave feminism. This is just bad medical practice no matter when you look at it.
Inducing labor at 39 weeks or even 37 weeks is, in no way, definitively bad medical practice.
You wouldn't know bad medical practice from a hole in the ground.
You're just another dirt-stupid social justice troll hell-bent on making everyone else just as stupid as yourself without regard to the harm it would cause you, them, their family, or people at large.
Eat a fucking bullet.
I am making $92 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning $16,000 a month by working on a laptop, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply.
Everybody must try this job now by just using this website. http://Www.workstar24.com
"Just because I made some bad choices in my life, they shouldn't be allowed to make bad health choices for me and my baby," said one woman whose labor was induced against her will.
We'll just whistle past the vaccine mandate graveyard because we're all friends here.
I'm having trouble figuring out how prisons inducing women's babies full term isn't just a business decision.
"and for many incarcerated women, as even an unwanted induction is likely better than running the risk of having an unattended, unmedicated birth in a prison cell."
This. Moving the expectant mother to a hospital and inducing labor under controlled medical conditions is definitely a patient safety issue.
And, patient safety aside, it’s fucking convenient that’s why it’s done all. the. fucking. time. outside prison.
The article is, at best, pointless and at worst, terribly misogynistic.
...although removing the shackles during childbirth is totally soft on crime. At least they can replace the shackles after the umbilical cord is cut, thank heavens!
Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit.. ???? AND GOOD LUCK.:)
https://WWW.WORKSCLICK.COM
There are all sorts of bad side effects to being a criminal. Your family loses income and a companion. Children probably do worse in school, and a single mother with small children probably ends up on welfare. Taxpayers pay too damned much.
Every time you decide "this is too far, we must be more humane", you move the boundary line. Next will be what NoVaNick says, home for the birth and a few months maternity leave to bond, and then the next step will be how awful it is to tear a mother away from a 3-month baby, make it a year -- 5 years when school starts -- 12 or14 when they are legally allowed to be home alone -- 18 when they graduate high school -- 26 when Obamacare on the parents' policy ends.
Don't be a criminal. Sorry, but that's up to you. What were these women in jail for? One has had two jail births? Were these separate crimes or after conjugal visits?
The real solution is real criminal reform.
* Get rid of victimless crimes.
* Many studies, and to me common sense, say that any incarceration beyond a week or two loses its value as a warning deterrent because prisoners get used to it. Not all victim crimes involve violence or make them a threat to communities. Sure, lock up murderers, rapists, violent theft. Zero point to locking up embezzlers, since their record will prevent any future employment with a chance to repeat their crime. Most non-violent criminals (smash and grab robbers, unarmed home burglars, pickpockets, shoplifters) could be safely monitored with ankle bracelets for their first offense. A weekend in the stocks or pillory, or traipsing around town with a humiliating sandwich board, would probably be a better deterrent and lesson for most first time petty thieves.
* Prison itself is atrocious, with almost no rehabilitation for prisoners who are going to get out in a year or 5 years.
* But reformers refuse to admit that some criminals are simply irredeemable and need to be locked up to keep the public safe.
The responsibility remains with the criminal. Don't play stupid games with stupid people in stupid places. Great, I'm glad you are an entrepreneur who recognizes that the war on drugs is immoral, and I applaud your risk-taking endeavor to fix a market failure. But if you get caught, don't whine it's my fault for shitty treatment.
What makes you think that that isn't what we are already doing?
Victimless crimes are often dealt with by mandatory drug treatment, counseling, etc. First time offenders usually don't go to jail.
When we lock people up, it is usually for repeat offenders or serious, violent crimes.
Maybe I am behind the times. But I have seen too many reports to the contrary to take your word for it.
Well, don’t believe the propaganda the left is feeding you and do some reading on your own.
Yep. It's hard to get into a state prison these days without committing an act of violence.
I strongly agree with your arguments about real criminal reform.
Despite that, there is a long-standing rule of ethics that when you take someone into custody and remove their ability to care for themselves, you assume the obligation of caring for them. This is true whether they are prisoners of war, accused criminals or convicted felons. Not all cultures share that ethical view but pretty much all Western ones do.
Care does not mean you have to set them up in the lap of luxury but care does mean that you don't punish criminals beyond the terms of their actual sentence. These women were sentenced to serve time in jail. Nothing in their sentences said anything about being subjected to unnecessary medical procedures.
I'll add separately that nothing in their sentences said anything about subjecting their child to unnecessary and risky medical procedures. Inducing labor early is not risk for the mother but it inevitably results in lower birth-weight babies than if they had been allowed to develop to term - and lower birth weight is strongly correlated with lots of adverse outcomes for the children.
Again back to legal traditions, we reject the principle of punishment "unto the seventh generation" - or even to the second.
Care does not mean you have to set them up in the lap of luxury but care does mean that you don’t punish criminals beyond the terms of their actual sentence. These women were sentenced to serve time in jail. Nothing in their sentences said anything about being subjected to unnecessary medical procedures.
Go fuck yourself with a rusty hacksaw. The article itself lays out that 2 of the 4 pregnancies were induced at 39 weeks and 2 were induced at 37. Having a pregnancy induced is neither cruel nor unusual nor unnecessary. You're just making excuses to take from law-abiding citizens in order to cater to the literal whims of criminals.
You're literally arguing that they should be provided "gold standard care" so yes, you arguing for criminals to be treated better than the average law abiding citizen can afford. We're talking term or near term inductions not induction at 7 months so weight and development are not at issue.
Being allowed to carry your pregnancy to full term is not "gold standard care" - it's basic standard care. We are only supposed to deviate from that when there is a countervailing medical reason - usually because continuing the pregnancy would increase risks for either the mother or child more than the risks created by inducing early.
re: "weight and development are not at issue" - When my children were born, my doctor rather strongly disagreed. It's much less of an issue than when you are inducing much earlier but to say that there is no effect is contradicted by the available science.
Don’t be a criminal.
...
But if you get caught, don’t whine it’s my fault for shitty treatment.
This is a bit of a non-sequitur. Stick with me here; we're not hearing about Emma having labor induced against her will, we're hearing about someone else. And the fact that they happen to be in prison is a pure non-sequitur because women who've never set foot in a court room or jail cell have labor induced against their will *all* *the* *time*. It's such a routine part of pregnancy that they overwhelmingly lay it out as the backup plan, and the back up to the backup plan, in virtually every pregnancy in the Western World.
So, to really end the problem, either all women should stop getting pregnant, all women should stop being stupid, or just Emma should stop being stupid and/or she should just shut up.
Well, sorry, taxpayers aren't willing to pay for "best practices", but only for minimally, medically necessary care.
Tell is Emma, should we as aghast that they are denied the bodily autonomy to get up, sleep, eat, exercise or walk where they want too? If not then this seems a reasonably policy and your proggy allies are exaggerating the "harm" beyond all reasonable bounds.
I'd be outraged if they were feeding them with hormones to induce abortion but an induced birth at week 37 of what, 39 doesn't seem like the handmaid's tale apocalypse you are talking about in the first half.
at week 37 of what, 39
Until 2013, anything between 37 and 42 weeks was 'to term' and, even now, 36 weeks is considered pre-term.
I expect this policy is being implemented to avoid liability issues from an inmate going into labor at a time they are not prepared for. They have a perverse incentive for such a policy.
I earn $100 per hour while taking risks and travelling to remote parts of the world. I worked remotely last week while in Rome, Monte Carlo, and eventually Paris. I’m back in the USA this week. I only perform simple activities from this one excellent website. see it,
Click Here to Copy…… http://Www.Smartcash1.com
I get paid over 190$ per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing..
HERE====)> http://WWW.RICHSALARIES.COM
Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit..
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> http://WWW.WORKSFUL.COM