Pregnant Women in Prison Aren't Getting Care, and No One Is Keeping Track
U.S. criminal justice policies have led to a 585 percent increase in the incarcerated women’s population since 1980 and have resulted in the highest female incarceration rate in the world.

Early in her second trimester, Linda Acoff was taken into custody for failing to complete court-ordered mental health treatment. After three weeks in the Cuyahoga County Jail in Columbus, Ohio, she began experiencing intensifying pressure, cramping, and bleeding. But despite her pleas for help, the nurse on duty offered only sanitary napkins and Tylenol. After banging on her cell door for hours, Acoff was eventually taken out of the jail's pregnancy pod on a stretcher—leaving behind the remains of her 17-week-old fetus.
A recent exposé from The Marshall Project revealed that Acoff had contracted chorioamnionitis, an infection of the fluid and tissues inside the uterus. Although considered a serious pregnancy complication that can threaten both the fetus and the mother, there was hope that Acoff's 17-week pregnancy could have been saved. "If there's early appropriate diagnosis and intervention, that baby can absolutely survive if the patient is treated promptly," Michael Baldonieri, an OB-GYN and assistant professor of reproductive biology at the Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, told The Marshall Project.
In the end, Acoff lost her baby, and while the nurse on duty was ultimately fired, the tragedy has not inspired change in the way that Ohio handles incarcerated pregnancies or collects data on them. Unfortunately for Acoff, and the estimated 55,000 pregnant women who enter the nation's jails every year, little data exists on the impact incarceration has on pregnancy outcomes.
A 2024 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that "comprehensive data on pregnant women incarcerated in state prisons and local jails do not exist" even though the U.S. has "one of the highest maternal mortality rates" and "incarcerates women at the highest rate in the world."
This number is trending upward: between 1980 and 2022, the female prison population in the U.S. grew by more than 585 percent, more than twice the growth rate of the male prison population. Much of this increase has been attributed to more expansive policing, post-conviction barriers, and stiffer drug sentencing laws. Women have seen drug-related arrests increase by 317 percent since 1980, while men have seen a 69 percent jump. Today, more than half of the incarcerated women are serving time for drug and property offenses.
Sentencing for these offenses, which considers the nature of the crime and criminal histories, can disproportionately put pregnant women inmates in harm's way.
The Prison Policy Initiative estimates that in 2024, about 189,600 women and girls were held in state custody, and 93,000 were held in local jails across the country. Of this number, more than half of the women were held in jail while awaiting trial. Even after a conviction, women were more likely to be sentenced to jail, rather than to prison, compared to convicted men.
This distribution can be problematic, particularly for pregnant women, because jails are poorly positioned to provide proper health care and often offer fewer services than prisons. This discrepancy, plus negligent care, is ultimately what cost Acoff her pregnancy.
Given these grim statistics, tracking pregnancy outcomes in jails is essential, Dr. Carolyn Sufrin, board member of the National Commission on Correctional Health Care and fellow at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, told The Marshall Project. Otherwise, Sufrin believes, it's impossible to know whether the nation's 3,000 jails are failing pregnant women.
Sufrin is right to demand better data on how incarceration impacts pregnancies, but data alone will not stop the mass incarceration of Americans or reform policies that created the problem.
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
What's care? Killing the baby
THis is just generalize feminist anti-woman and anti-baby hate filtering down to the prisons. Trans "men" should not be in female prisons, they are NOT women.
As to coercion
close to 70 percent of the women who had abortions described them as coerced, pressured, or inconsistent with their own values and preferences.
AND
close to 70 percent of the women who had abortions described them as coerced, pressured, or inconsistent with their own values and preferences.
Show me that you care about the woman being herded against her will to kill the baby and I will show you why you are puzzled
Your PervFected cites fell off!!!
Close to 99 percent of twat "Barking and Growling at Normal People" has to bark and growl about is just generally LIES, plus barking and growling at the moon, the doorbell, noises from the TV, and squirrels!
Sorry Shrike, the taxpayers are not paying for the underage girls you rape to get abortions, you sick fuck.
U.S. criminal justice policies have led to a 585 percent increase in the incarcerated women’s population
Or maybe chicks are doing more crimes.
Girls will be girls.
Yeah, that’s an easy call.
Organized shoplifting aside, Our “culture” tells them they should start swinging on people who “diss” them like they are Roberto Duran
Girls Gone Wild? No, that was different...
Maybe states could stop spending money on sex changes for inmates and instead spend that money on basic healthcare for inmates? How about that idea?
Show me numbers to back up your claim. Or are you pulling it out of your ass like?
In Washington state alone, the cost of "gender affirming care" for inmates was over a half million dollars in the four years between 2020-2024. That doesn't sound like much money, but it would have paid for a lot of basic healthcare that sadly too many inmates are denied.
Fuck the inmates. The women in this story can be raped by some male pervert pretending to be a woman as a bonus to their poor healthcare. That is what you want. Go fuck yourself.
https://mynorthwest.com/ktth/ktth-opinion/rantz-hundreds-of-thousands-of-dollars-spent-on-gender-reassignment-surgeries-on-transgender-inmates/3991822
Molly isn’t very bright.
Well I am moderately-pleasantly surprised!
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/mynorthwest/
RIGHT-CENTER BIAS
These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by appeals to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information but may require further investigation. See all Right-Center sources.
Overall, we rate MyNorthwest right-center biased based on editorial positions and High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact check record.
Huh, so due to bias, it can be dismissed out of hand. Noted.
You can (and apparently do) dismiss out of hand, twatever Hurts Your Precious Baby Feelz. There's nothing I can do about that... PervFected People WILL Be PervFected!
(I don't bang my head against walls, either.)
The facts are what they are. If you have evidence they are not what is claimed here, give it. Saying "but bias" is a retarded response.
It's also an ad hominem.
Like, an actual one. Not one that people who don't know what "ad hominem" means call "ad hominem."
Most of ye sore-in-the-cunt cuntsorevaturds are here to BARK-BARK-BARK like the True Tribalists that Ye so PervFectly are! Facts are an after-thought; Tribal Allegiance is THE main dish!!!
I posted a rating on the source, and said that I was "...moderately-pleasantly surprised!"... Because, as the out-take shows, the source does NOT lie (fake the facts). For that, Ye PervFectly HATEFUL ASSHOLES flame on me, because You PervFectly recall that I do NOT suck PervFected Orange Dick!!!
Twat a slurprise... HATEFUL True-Tribal ASSHOLES are HATEFUL True-Tribal ASSHOLES! More news at 11:00!!!
I for one can’t STAND the idea that a casual reader here of a libertarian news and commenting site would read the vapid and vile comments, and conclude, “Oh, so THAT’s what libertarians are all about!” No, it’s just that REAL libertarians (and VERY few others) still believe in free speech, so the troglodytes come HERE, where their vile lies & vapid insults will NOT be taken down!
The intelligent, well-informed, and benevolent members of tribes have ALWAYS been feared and resented by those who are made to look relatively worse (often FAR worse), as compared to the advanced ones. Especially when the advanced ones denigrate tribalism. The advanced ones DARE to openly mock “MY Tribe’s lies leading to violence against your tribe GOOD! Your tribe’s lies leading to violence against MY Tribe BAD! VERY bad!” And then that’s when the Jesus-killers, Mahatma Gandhi-killers, Martin Luther King Jr.-killers, etc., unsheath their long knives!
“Do-gooder derogation” (look it up) is a socio-biologically programmed instinct. SOME of us are ethically advanced enough to overcome it, using benevolence and free will! For details, see http://www.churchofsqrls.com/Do_Gooders_Bad/ and http://www.churchofsqrls.com/Jesus_Validated/ .
In conclusion, troglodytes, thanks for helping me to prove my points!
Then they crucified Jesus, 'cause Jesus made them look bad! ALSO because Jesus made them look bad FOR THEIR STUPID, HIDE-BOUND TRIBALISM! "The parable of the Good Samaritan" was VERY pointed, because the Samaritans were of the WRONG tribe, in the eyes of "Good Jews" of the day.
Instead of KILLING Jesus, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., etc., we’d be better off VOTING for these kinds of people! But we will NOT, ’cause they Hurt Our Precious Baby Feelings, by giving tribalism and do-gooder derogation the disrespect that they (and we self-righteous tribalists) SOOO thoroughly deserve!
And better just be basic, too. No spending millions on cancer treatments and the like.
Why? Why should prison be a death sentence?
Suppose an inmate is serving a 10-year sentence and in year 2 the inmate is diagnosed with cancer. Should that inmate get cancer treatment, or should the inmate's remaining 8 years be converted into a death sentence?
Suppose an inmate is 75 years old, and is sentenced to 10 years. There is very little chance he will still be alive when his sentence is up. Is that a death sentence?
What does this have to do with a cancer diagnosis?
People die. Sometimes the end of their life comes while serving a prison sentence. That does not mean their sentence was "converted to a death sentence". All mortal beings are "sentenced" to die.
There is a difference between death due to natural causes, and death due to deliberately withholding care.
Refusing to treat a sick inmate is a deliberate choice that effectively converts a finite-duration prison term into a death sentence.
A death due to illness is a death by natural causes. Declining to attempt a cure of the illness does not "convert" anything. Should society be so gracious as to provide aggressive treatment for an inmate's illness, he should be grateful, but if we decline to do so, no right of his has been violated.
So you're preference is that no inmate in prison or jail, whether or not they have been convicted of a trial or are just waiting for trial (e.g. they can't make bond) should get any sort of medical care. If they get an infection, let it fester. If they get beaten up by another inmate, let it fester. If they get appendicitis, let them die horribly. Sounds really humane.
Please quote from where I said that.
No, the prison warden has a duty of care for those who are confined.
Should the warden be permitted to withhold food and water from prisoners? After all, "death by starvation" is "death by natural causes" by your standard, right?
I'm baffled why there is even a discussion on this point. Are you seriously trying to argue that the government ought to have the legal permission to mistreat inmates?
And there you again. I don't know why I bother.
Yeah you just don't like it when the logical consequences of your argument are laid bare.
If you think it is permissible for the government to withhold life-saving medical care from inmates, why shouldn't it also be permissible for the government to withhold food from inmates? "If they wanted to eat, they shouldn't have broken the law in the first place", right?
Prisons have poor medical care because the wardens don't give a shit. Not a budget thing.
If you don't care for the services in prison, you always have the option of not committing serious crimes.
How do you do my fellow kids? Did you notice I said "Pregnant women"?
Man, we sure could use our own Joe Rogan, amirite?
Or, they could just not commit crimes while they're making babies. Or, keep their legs crossed while committing crimes.
Today, more than half of the incarcerated women are serving time for drug and property offenses.
That's a good thing. I mean, would you rather >50% of incarcerated women have committed violent crime? That's a weird thing to desire.