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.

Mallory Loyola became the first pregnant woman to be arrested and charged with assault on her fetus under Tennessee’s new controversial law criminalizing the illegal use of drugs during pregnancy. Loyola was arrested July 8, 2014, one week after the law went into effect. The 26-year-old tested positive for methamphetamine (not technically a narcotic) before being released on bail. If convicted Loyola could be incarcerated for up to a year.

According to the new law, “a woman may be prosecuted for assault for the illegal use of a narcotic drug while pregnant, if her child is born addicted to or harmed by the narcotic drug.” If a woman does not enroll in a treatment program for the narcotic, she would be charged. According to RH Reality Check, a reproductive health news group, “the law was promoted by prosecutors against the recommendations of medical professionals.” Governor Bill Haslam says that the legislation is intended to encourage women to go to treatment centers; however, the effect of the bill may be different from its intended purpose.

Outcomes of Criminalizing Pregnancy

Imani Gandy of RH Reality Check suggests that Black women will be targeted by the law’s enforcement at a disproportionate rate. Based on ugly stereotypes with roots in Reagan-era “crack baby” rhetoric, more scrutiny would be placed on pregnant Black women, Gandy says. Whether or not these prejudices are acted on, there is a structural problem for disadvantaged, minority women.

State Senator Mike Bell explained that in his rural district “there’s no treatment facility for these women there, and it would be a substantial drive for a woman caught in one of these situations to go to an approved treatment facility. Looking at the map of the state, there are several areas where this is going to be a problem.” Healthy and Free Tennessee notes that the state has 177 addiction treatment facilities; yet only two “provide prenatal care on site and allow older children to stay with their mothers, and only 19 provide any addiction care for pregnant women.” For impoverished women, accessing and enrolling in treatment centers will be extremely difficult, if not impossible.

There is a discrepancy between the intention of the bill, as suggested by Haslam, and the likely effect of the bill. While it may have been passed to incentivize enrollment in treatment programs, it will likely result in the incarceration of women who cannot access those treatment centers. Because Tennessee did not expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, the costs of such treatment may be overwhelming. Women who know that they cannot access addiction services will be discouraged from seeking help, lest they be charged with assault and have their children taken away.

Other Approaches 

In response to prenatal substance abuse, Tennessee passed the Safe Harbor Act about a year ago. The 2013 legislation, also signed by Haslam, was designed to ensure that women can access treatment centers without fear of incarceration or having their children removed. The more recent bill not only negates the benefits of the Safe Harbor Act, but regresses Tennessee even further.

This heavy-handed approach to prenatal substance abuse hints at another discrepancy: addiction is viewed by some as a disease, and by others as a crime. While the state and the governor embrace the latter with the passage and enforcement of this law, the federal government has taken a different approach.

Michael Botticelli, acting director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, spoke about the federal government’s broad strategy in response to the recent Tennessee law: “Under the Obama administration, we’ve really tried to reframe drug policy not as a crime but as a public health-related issue, and that our response on the national level is that we not criminalize addiction.” The politics of considering substance abuse a criminal offense rather than a disease is amplified by the politics of federal-state relationships.

Support for the Law

The Tennessee Medical Association was supportive of the Safe Harbor Act, yet its president, Dr. Doug Springer, recently spoke out in favor of the new law. “The misdemeanor means it can be expunged by a judge, it means that the [Department of Human Services] doesn’t take your baby away. It has nothing to do with an application for a job because it doesn’t interfere with your job prospects, and that’s really important,” says Dr. Springer. Obviously, if a mother is incarcerated, she and her baby could not be together. But if the law makes it easy for the offense to be expunged, incarcerated mothers may not have to go through as many obstacles as other ex-convicts.

Because the law is so new, Mallory Loyola’s outcome will set precedent. The law is set to expire after two years, at which time Tennessee will evaluate its effects.

—

Jake Ephros (@JakeEphros)

Featured image courtesy of [Greyerbaby via Pixabay]

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post First Pregnant Woman Arrested Under Controversial Tennessee Law appeared first on Law Street.

That headline I just typed, “Pregnant Women Will be Treated Humanely in New York?” Well I cringed while I wrote it, because really, it shouldn’t be a headline. That should be a given; a no-brainer. But apparently it’s not. Because last week, New York City passed the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. The law is incredibly basic, it essentially says that pregnant workers are entitled to reasonable accommodations so that they can stay at work, if possible.

Here’s an example to illustrate the incredibly basic rights these women are looking for. Think of a grocery store where the cashiers stand up. Under current laws in most states and cities, the store has no obligation to provide a pregnant cashier with a stool, even if that stool would not hamper her job performance and would allow her to work longer into the duration of her pregnancy.

Philadelphia and New Jersey already have similar laws in place, although under different names. Our federal laws already say that women who are pregnant cannot be discriminated against, but those laws don’t go far enough. The laws do prevent an employer from getting rid of an employee purely for the reason that she is pregnant. But what they don’t prevent are women getting forced out of their jobs by a lack of accommodations, like an inability to take breaks when needed.

So women are left with two choices: quit their jobs to be able to take care of their health, or continue working in dangerous conditions. Most women have to choose the latter, because for most Americans, giving up a paycheck simply isn’t an option. The National Women’s Law Center, working with another group called A Better Balance, issued this report last summer. The report includes testimonials of women who either lost their babies, or were fired, or forced on leave because their jobs would not provide fair accommodations. The testimonials are heartbreaking and infuriating. One of them is Guadalupe Hernandez, a woman in DC who was fired for not following draconian rules that were instituted after she became pregnant at the fast food place where she worked. Her takeaway from the entire situation sums up why protections for pregnant women are so badly needed,

This incident devastated me. Now I wouldn’t be able to bring any money into the family. For the first time in my life, I had to ask for government assistance (food stamps and unemployment benefits). I tried to look for other work, but every time I went to a potential employer, they looked at my belly and said “no.” My husband, who was not working at the time, my older child, and my baby paid the price.

The New York Times also highlighted the story of a woman for whom this law is deeply personal. Her name is Floralba Fernandez Espinal. She has worked at a thrift store in the Bronx for a few years. Her job specifically was moving clothing. She asked for a more low-impact job while pregnant, such as working as a cashier or putting tags on clothing, and was denied. She even provided a doctor’s note confirming what she needed. Instead, she was placed on unpaid leave. There’s currently a legal battle brewing between the store and her union. 

The United States as a whole has a disgustingly bad track record on issues regarding mothers working. The US does not require paid maternity leave. I would say major kudos to Philly, NYC, and New Jersey for taking action, but the fact that such action is needed in the first place is beyond offensive.

My mother was put on bed rest for a few months before I was born. Luckily, she and my father were fortunate enough to be financially stable on his salary alone. Who knows what would have happened if that wasn’t possible for them. I bring this up because this should be a given. A child’s life should never be put in danger because their mother is either put in an unsafe working environment or can no longer work. So I would hope we eventually get action at the Federal level on this issue, because this shouldn’t be news. This should be basic human decency.

[New York Times]

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead 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.

Featured image courtesy of [Johannes Jander via Flickr]

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 Pregnant Women Will be Treated Humanely in New York appeared first on Law Street.