Source: http://advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/blog/2012/09/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 10:16:06+00:00

Document:
Last year, NAPW published an article called Missed Opportunities in McCorvey v. Hill: The Limits of Pro-Choice Lawyering, looking at the ways in which abortion litigation has been done in the past, and could be done more effectively in the future. NAPW wanted to make sure that the case of Jennie McCormack, a woman arrested for having an "illegal" abortion in Idaho, was not yet another missed opportunity.
As a result, when Ms. McCormack was arrested, we immediately reached out to her attorney, Richard Hearn. NAPW then worked with sister organizations Legal Voice and the Center for Reproductive Rights to file a "friend of the court" brief supporting Jennie McCormack in McCormack v. Hiedeman. Kathleen O'Sullivan, Breena Roos, and Ashley Locke of the law firm Perkins Coie LLP represented our organizations in filing this brief.
Our amicus brief highlighted the fact that punishing third parties for performing illegal abortions is different - historically, constitutionally, and physically - from punishing the pregnant woman herself. We also reminded the court that women alone bear the risks to life and health that pregnancy creates. And, we emphasized that advocates who seek to overturn Roe v. Wade consistently claim that the laws re-criminalizing abortion will not be used to prosecute and punish the women who have them.
On September 11, 2012, in the first decision of its kind, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion that addressed whether states may use their existing criminal abortion laws to arrest and prosecute women who have abortions. In this case the charges against Ms. McCormack had been dropped for lack of evidence, but the state threatened to reinstate them if more evidence became available, and argued that it had the right to punish any woman who self-induced an abortion.
Ms. McCormack filed suit in federal district court to enjoin the state from using Idaho Code § 18- 608A ("it is unlawful for any person other than a physician to cause or perform an abortion"), § 18-606(2) (Idaho's pre-Roe law stating "every woman who knowingly submits to an abortion or solicits of another, for herself, the production of an abortion, or who purposely terminates her own pregnancy otherwise than by a live birth, shall be deemed guilty of a felony. . ") and §18-5-505-507 (the newly-enacted "Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act," a ban on all non-therapeutic abortions after 20 weeks) to prosecute Ms. McCormack and other women in the future under these laws. The district court granted a preliminary injunction as to the "physician only" and the "woman herself" provisions, and the State appealed.
Using strong language, the Court of Appeals upheld a preliminary injunction that prevents the state from prosecuting Ms. McCormack under Idaho Code §18-606 and §18-608, finding that she was likely to succeed on her constitutional challenge to Idaho's criminal abortion law as a mechanism for locking up women who have had abortions. The court ruled that she did not have standing to challenge the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.
The Court's opinion specifically relied on arguments from our brief that acknowledged 1) that earlier decisions that allowed states to restrict the provision of abortion services to doctors did not address the question of whether women themselves could be locked up, 2) that third parties who perform abortions on women are not the same as the women themselves, and 3) that an overriding historical purpose for regulating abortion has been to protect - not arrest - women.
The court took pains to acknowledge the barriers that women, especially low-income women, face in obtaining abortion services, including lack of providers, financial obstacles, and harassment at clinics. The opinion also acknowledged the practical realities of Ms. McCormack's life and the medical, moral, and ethical decision-making women engage in when making decisions about the pregnancies.
We take special note of the fact that despite leading 'pro-life' organizations' repeated assurances that that their efforts will not result in women going to jail, none opposed the arrest of Ms. McCormack. NAPW's views were featured in this RH Reality Check report on the decision.
TRENTON, NJ (September 10, 2012): On September 10, 2012, at 10:00 a.m., the Supreme Court of New Jersey will hear argument from Lawrence S. Lustberg, Esq. of Gibbons P.C., who, with National Advocates for Pregnant Women, represents a group of fifty national and international medical, public health, and child welfare organizations, experts, and advocates challenging lower court decisions that radically expand the scope of the state’s civil child neglect and abuse laws to apply to a pregnant woman in relation to the fetus she carries and sustains. These experts maintain that the finding of the lower courts rests on a number of invalid assumptions about drug use rather than on reliable science.
In this case, New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS) v. A.L., a woman identified as A.L. gave birth to a healthy baby in September of 2007. DYFS argued that positive drug screens for cocaine on A.L. and her newborn alone -- without any evidence of harm and without any science at all finding that positive drug screens predict harm -- were a sufficient basis to find that A.L. had neglected her child. A lower court and the Appellate Division agreed, not only finding neglect in this case, but also declaring that a New Jersey’s neglect law could be applied in the context of pregnancy. On October 26, 2011, the New Jersey Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and oral argument is scheduled for Monday, September 10, 2012 at 10:00 am at the Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex in Trenton, NJ.
In their brief filed on January 9, 2012, amici, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Addiction Science Research and Education Center, and the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry, focus on the New Jersey Supreme Court’s commitment to the use of reliable scientific evidence in judicial decision-making. Amici argued that the lower courts relied on popular misconceptions about drugs, pregnant women, and child welfare that lack any foundation in evidence-based, peer-reviewed research.
Expert amici explained to the court that medical research makes clear that numerous substances, conditions, and circumstances raise similar or greater risks to fetuses than prenatal exposure to cocaine. While amici were careful to note that they were not suggesting that prenatal exposure to criminalized drugs is benign, they emphasized that current scientific evidence simply does not support judicially rewriting state law to allow for a per se finding of abuse or neglect based solely on evidence of a woman’s use of cocaine, or other criminalized or non-criminalized drug during pregnancy.
Amici also noted that there is no research to support the idea that a positive drug test demonstrates harm, risk of harm, or a likelihood of neglect or abuse. They emphasized, however, that there is research finding that threats of punishment, including the loss of child custody, deter pregnant women from care, undermining rather than advancing maternal, fetal, and child health.
Ms. A.L. is represented by Clara Licata of the New Jersey Office of Parental Representation. An amicus brief supporting Ms. A.L.’s position was also filed on behalf of The Legal Services of New Jersey.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 18
 § 18
 §18
 §18
 §18
 v.