New York City’s Human Rights Commission released new advisories this week that make it clear it’s illegal to refuse to serve a pregnant woman in a bar or any other establishment that serves alcohol. While bars have to display signs emphasizing that drinking alcohol while pregnant could harm a fetus, according to city law it is up to the woman to make the choice whether or not to drink herself. While the overall guidelines released by the city mostly deal with workplace discrimination against pregnant women, they also do make it clear that restaurant owners, bartenders, bouncers, and other employees cannot refuse service to a pregnant woman in a bar.

According to the guidelines:

Judgments and stereotypes about how pregnant individuals should behave, their physical capabilities and what is or is not healthy for a fetus are pervasive in our society and cannot be used as pretext for unlawful discriminatory decisions in public venues.

The Human Rights Commission is looking into a case in which a pregnant woman claims she was discriminated against and not allowed to enter a bar or club–although the specific details of the case are unclear given that it’s still open for investigation.

This announcement also come after some controversy a few years ago about a prank pop up bar that advertised itself as catering to pregnant women. According to the Independent:

They even erected signage above the space in the East Village of Manhattan announcing the venue as Gestations.  While it attracted widespread local press coverage, the spot never actually opened.

The faux bar was brazen in its promotional language, declaring:  ‘All you mothers-to-be should come check out our trimester specials and our 9-month happy hour because now you’re drinking for two!”’ A similar tone was adopted on its Facebook page. ‘The bigger the belly, the more you can drink. True for men and pregnant women #gestationsny,’ it declared.

While the fact that laws to protect pregnant women include allowing them into bars seems somewhat counterintuitive, the overall guidelines are good news in the fight against discrimination.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NYC Bars Not Allowed to Turn Away Pregnant Women appeared first on Law Street.

For 7 years, Rennie Gibbs was charged with the murder of her stillborn child. But last week, a Mississippi judge threw out the case. This wasn’t a “normal” murder charge- it involved the concept of fetal harm.

In this case, Rennie gave birth to a stillborn daughter, whose umbilical cord was wrapped around her neck. While tragic, cases like this do happen, and mothers are never charged with a crime, much less murder.

But the twist is that Rennie’s daughter tested positive for traces of a byproduct of cocaine- which is different than the drug itself- at the time of her death. When the medical examiner found this out, he ruled the death a homicide. Shortly after, charges were filed against Rennie, and only now, seven years later, was the case thrown out.

The charges of second-degree murder brought against Rennie are known as “depraved heart murder” in Mississippi. This is constituted by actions “eminently dangerous to others” and “regardless of human life” even if unintentional.

No one thinks taking drugs while pregnant is healthy, but is it enough to result in a murder charge? Not according to one Mississippi judge. The case was recently thrown out on the grounds that there was no conclusive proof that the drug usage during Rennie’s pregnancy caused the baby’s death. Furthermore, taking the drugs was not so egregious of an act that it constituted murder. At most, the judge ruled that charges of manslaughter could be re-filed.

And while Rennie’s case is a tragedy in itself, it isn’t an anomaly. Over the past few decades, there have been a number of these “fetal harm” cases that target mothers who either lose children during pregnancy, or have stillborn children.

One woman in Iowa was jailed for two days after she fell down the stairs and suffered a miscarriage. She was going to be charged with “feticide” which, in Iowa, is when someone “intentionally terminates a human pregnancy with the knowledge and voluntary consent of the pregnant person, after the end of the second trimester.” In this instance, the woman had to purposefully fall down the stairs with the intention of killing the fetus. Sound crazy? There’s more.

One woman in Indiana found herself in jail for over a year after she tried to kill herself while pregnant. Though she survived, the child did not. And three months after her suicide attempt in 2010, she was arrested. Though she was supposed to originally be charged with murder, in 2013 she plead to a lesser count of misdemeanor criminal recklessness.

But something is missing from all three of these cases: intent.

There was no proof in any of these cases, and certainly not enough to convict, that the women intended for their children to die- and in most murder cases, that’s a necessary element. So why did the prosecutors move forward with these charges in the first place? Mississippi, Iowa, and Indiana are all very conservative states when it comes to the rights of unborn children. And there are certainly merits to the points brought up regarding if a fetus deserves rights like those of humans. But there is something inherently wrong about making examples out of women who clearly made accidents, or acted negligently, but without a clear disregard for human life.

These cases aren’t even about abortion. They are about people who don’t know how the law works, or don’t care about how the law works, trying to take advantage of loopholes and inconsistencies to advance their agendas. No one- not mothers, not children, or the judicial system, can be helped from people like medical examiners who ignore scientific evidence to prove a point.

This debate goes beyond the rights of fetuses and mothers; it expands into personal vendettas and ideologies getting in the way of practicing good law. By targeting women with unfairly applied laws, no one wins in the end.

 [Mississippi Bill] [Pro Publica] [RH Reality Check] [Huffington Post] [Iowa Law]

—

Molly Hogan (@molly_hogan13)

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fetal Harm: A New Kind of Crime? appeared first on Law Street.