Abstract
On December 10, 1990 the Food and Drug Administration approved the use of Norplant® implants, a major advance in birth control technology. The implant, which is surgically placed in the upper arm of a woman, consists of several small rubber tubes that release progestin over a period of five or more years. Within a month the new device made its impact felt on the criminal justice system in California. Darlene Johnson, a mother of four, pleaded guilty to several counts of felony child abuse after being arrested for beating two of her children with a belt and an electric cord. On January 2, 1991, Howard Broadman, Superior Court Judge of Tulare County, California, sentenced Ms. Johnson to serve one year in jail and three years on probation while using the Norplant® implant. In addition, her children were placed in foster homes.1 Ms. Johnson was also ordered to undergo mental health counseling and parenting classes.2 Later, Ms. Johnson said she agreed to the terms of probation only because she was afraid she would otherwise be sentenced to serve the entire four years in jail.3 Ms. Johnson then appealed the ruling.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes and References
“Woman in Abuse Case Agrees to Birth Control,” New York Times, Friday, January 4, 1991, sec. A, 12 6.
Michael Lev, “Judge Is Firm on Forced Contraception, but Welcomes Appeal,” New York Times, Friday, January 11, 1991, sec A, 17 1.
Tamara Lewin, “Implanted Birth Control Device Renews Debate Over Forced Contraception,” New York Times, January 10, 1991, sec. A, 20, 1.
bid.
Ibid. and Lev, op. cit.
US Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1991 (111th edition) Washington, DC, 1991, Table 337, p. 194.
Some of these restrictions have been upheld by the United States Supreme Court. In Griffin y Wisconsin the court held that searches of probationers’ homes are allowed under circumstances that would otherwise be unconstitutional. Specifically, searches of the homes of probationers do not require a warrant or probable cause, but merely reasonable grounds to believe that there is contraband. 483 US 868, 879 (1987). In Minnesota v Murphy the court held that “a state may require a probationer to appear and discuss matters that affect his probationary status” even if there is reason to suspect that the answers will be self-incriminating. 465 US 420, 435 (1984).
A recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine indicated that 15% of women seeking prenatal care in Pinellas County, Florida tested positive for alcohol, cocaine, opiates, or cannabis. Ira Chasnoff, Harvey Landress, and Mark Barrett, “The Prevalence of Illicit-Drug or Alcohol Use During Pregnancy and Discrepancies in Mandatory Reporting in Pinellas County, Florida,” The New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 322 (April 26, 1990), 1202–1206. Another study of 36 hospitals found that 11% of pregnant women had used drugs during their pregnancy that could harm the fetus. Ira Chasnoff, “Drug Use and Women: Establishing a Standard of Care,” Annals of the New York Academy of Science, Vol. 562 (1989), 208–210, cited in Chasnoff, Landress and Barrett, p. 1205, nt. 1.
Robert N. Proctor, Racial Hygiene: Medicine under the Nazis, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1988, 97.
Ibid.
Proctor, op. cit., 99.
Proctor, op. cit., 98.
n general, though blacks make up less than 13% of the population of the US, they comprise approximately 47% of the inmate population in state prisons. Statistical Abstract of the United: 1991, Tables 12 and 335, pages 12 and 193.
Chasnoff, Landress and Barrett, 1203–1204.
Dorothy E. Roberts, “Punishing Drug Addicts Who Have Babies: Women of Color, Equality, and the Right to Privacy,” Harvard Law Review, Vol. 104 (May, 1991), 1421, nt 6, citing a memorandum prepared by the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project.
As previously noted minorities make up a disproportionately large number of the prison population. See note 13.
Planned Parenthood of Missouri v Danforth, 428 US 52 (1976).
Rachael Pine, head of the Reproductive Freedom Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, for example, argues that plea bargaining in general is so inherently coercive that birth control should not be considered an appropriate matter for plea bargaining. Lewin, op. cit.
Federal regulations, for example, recognize the vulnerable status of prisoners and require additional safeguards before permitting the use of prisoners in medical or behavioral research. See 46 CFR 301–306.
Griswold v Connecticut, 381 US 479 (1965); Roe v Wade, 410 US 113 (1976).
Conjugal visits are still virtually nonexistent in the US.
John MacKenzie also makes this point in an editorial. See “Whose Choice Is It Anyway?” New York Times, January 28, 1991, sec. A, 22, 1.
I am indebted to David Mayo for his helpful comments and suggestions on earlier drafts of this paper.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1993 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gunderson, M. (1993). Birth Control as a Condition of Probation or Parole. In: Humber, J.M., Almeder, R.F. (eds) Biomedical Ethics Reviews · 1992. Biomedical Ethics Reviews. Humana Press, Totowa, NJ. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-59259-446-7_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-59259-446-7_4
Publisher Name: Humana Press, Totowa, NJ
Print ISBN: 978-1-4757-4640-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-59259-446-7
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive