Source: https://www.criminallegalnews.org/cln-litigation/norris-v-nelson-pln-amicus-brief-8th-circuit-shackling-women-prisoners-in-labor-2008/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 22:25:37+00:00

Document:
by a publicly traded corporation.
Treatment or Punishment, G.A. Res. 46, 39 U.N. GAOR Supp.
United States of America, 87th Sess., ¶ 33, U.N. Doc.
endanger the well-being of infants or their mothers.
human dignity and cultural variations.
pregnancy outcomes, from receiving prenatal care.
affirms the worth and dignity of every child, every family.
protection of international human rights standards and the rule of law.
fact finding, direct legal representation, education and training, and publications.
community members on human rights issues.
across the country to secure human rights for all.
information that empower women to make informed choices.
education and outreach, including in the areas of criminal and gender justice.
Amicus Curiae Citizens for Midwifery (“CfM”) is a national, consumerbased non-profit organization promoting the Midwives Model of Care.
essential for optimal outcomes for mothers and babies.
challenge gender bias and discrimination through legal and public policy advocacy.
has expertise in international law as well as American constitutional jurisprudence.
Amendment’s cruel and unusual punishment prohibition.
seeking to improve overall conditions at correctional facilities wherever D.C.
chapters in California and more than 25,000 members and supporters nationwide.
class action litigation in federal and state courts on behalf of Florida prisoners.
standards offer assistance in interpreting both state and federal statutes at issue.
United States under the Convention Against Torture.
committed to working for social justice.
the bar to the bench, school board meetings to congressional hearings, and beyond.
punishment, and to women’s reproductive rights and access to health care.
income women and families and to benefit the entire community in which we live.
and advancing immigrant and refugee rights.
education, policy advocacy, and community mobilization.
lawyers dedicated to using the law as an instrument for social amelioration.
women’s rights and prisoners’ rights.
chapters in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
Massachusetts, South Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas, Texas, and Arizona.
to ensure that no facility in the Northwest engages in shackling of laboring women.
interest in this litigation and in protecting women’s reproductive health.
sixty-five percent of PLN subscribers are state and federal prisoners.
interest in ensuring the protection of the constitutional rights of all prisoners.
self-help and human rights education.
neglect in the 258 county facilities in Texas.
100 prisoners, including several cases before this Court.
interest law firm with offices in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
litigation, public policy development, public education and individual counseling.
required by the U.S. Constitution and international human rights law.
* Affiliations are listed for identification purposes only.
Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments.
trauma, and jeopardized the safety of the child she was about to deliver.
Eighth Amendment, this Court must affirm the judgment of the district court.
Laboring to Deliver a Nine Pound, Seven Ounce Child.
99-100 (1958); accord Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 738 (2002).
health or safety. See, e.g., Hope, 536 U.S. at 737; Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S.
25, 31-32 (1993); Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 297-302 (1991).
measured by contemporary standards of decency.
Helling, 509 U.S. at 32; Wilson, 501 U.S. at 303; Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104.
breaks. Id. at 735. The Supreme Court held that, based on the facts alleged by Mr.
is nothing less than the dignity of man.
Id. at 738 (internal quotation marks and footnotes omitted).
a hospital bed while she was laboring to deliver a nine pound, seven ounce child.
(“ACOG Letter”), available at http://www.acog.org/departments/dept_notice.cfm?
Farmer, 511 U.S. at 836-37, 842.
immediate security threat. Compare Hope, 536 U.S. at 738 with SA 197; Nelson v.
Correctional Medical Services, 2007 WL 1703562, *10 (E.D. Ark. Jun. 11, 2007).
in the instant case as it was in Hope.1 Cf. Hope, 536 U.S. at 738.
the Touchstone for the Eighth Amendment’s Interpretation.
Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment.
the Eighth Amendment because that question was not necessary to the disposition of the case.
condemn the practice as dangerous, unnecessary, and dehumanizing.
Women Prisoners of the District of Columbia v. District of Columbia, 877 F. Supp.
care based on fundamental principles in public health and legal guidelines set forth in the U.S.
Constitution, international treaties and court rulings.
redundant and unacceptable in light of the risk of injury to a woman and baby.” Id.
Corrections Admin. Dir. 04-08 (2004).
shackles during the birthing process with documented security concerns. Id.
practice violates contemporary standards of decency.
and unusual punishments.’”); Jackson, 404 F.2d at 579.
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”), GA res. 2200A (XXI), 21 U.N.
Mar. 1, 1980, 1249 U.N.T.S. 13.
made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.”).
33 U.N. Doc. CAT/C/USA/CO/2 (2006).
Rights Committee: United States of America, 87th Sess., ¶ 33, U.N. Doc.
compliance with the treaty. Id.
Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, U.N. Doc. A/CONF/1 Annex 1, E.S.C. res.
663C, U.N. ESCOR, 24th Sess., Supp. No. 1, U.N. Doc. E/3048, Rule 33(c).
accommodations for the care and treatment of pregnant women. Id. at art. 23(1).
Roper, 543 U.S. at 554; Estelle, 429 U.S. at 103-110; Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S.
Human Rights and Freedoms, Nov. 4, 1950, 213 U.N.T.S. 221; see Henaf v.
further demonstrating that the practice violates contemporary standards of decency.
Process is Prohibited in England.
Women Prisoners, Annex A to PSO 4800 (2008), available at http://www.
During the Birthing Process Was Clearly Established at the Time of Ms.
unconstitutional. See 877 F. Supp. at 699.
had ratified. See supra at 8-14.
entered by the district court.
certificate of compliance and certificate of service.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 art. 23
 v. 
 v.