After a woman gave birth in a New York City courtroom earlier this month, New York lawmakers are pushing for anti-shackling bills that would strengthen protections for pregnant prisoners and women in custody.
“A public defender in the courtroom that night said [Samantha] Randazzo,” who had been charged with a low-level drug offense, had her hands “cuffed behind her back while she waited to be arraigned,” the Gothamist‘s Samantha Max reported on Wednesday. “But officials said the restraints were removed once it became clear she was in labor.”
There were “conflicting accounts about what happened” after Randazzo’s water broke, according to The New York Times. While the Legal Aid Society and the Brooklyn Defenders released a joint statement the day after the incident claiming Randazzo had been forced to give birth “in chains,” the Times notes that a spokesman for the Office of Court Administration said that her feet were not shackled, and she was not “cuffed” to the bench. Randazzo’s lawyer also gave a less grim description of the incident, praising “the quick actions of the court officers,” reported the Times.
Although Randazzo’s baby was delivered safely, some New York lawmakers have called for more protections for pregnant New Yorkers in custody.
State Sen. Julia Salazar (D–Brooklyn), who introduced an anti-shackling bill in January of last year, called Randazzo’s courtroom birth “horrific” in a recent City & State op-ed.
“It is disappointing that we need legislation to outlaw such unfathomable treatment, but we do,” she wrote.
Salazar’s bill would prohibit the use of restraints by law enforcement when “a person who is known to be pregnant, in labor or delivery, or twelve weeks post-pregnancy while in the custody of law enforcement, subject to custodial interrogation, or has their freedom of action restricted by law enforcement in any significant way.” The bill would also prohibit the use of restraints on incarcerated women during transportation to medical care “absent extraordinary circumstances.”
Assembly member Linda B. Rosenthal (D–Manhattan), who has also introduced a similar anti-shackling bill in the state assembly, told the Gothamist the legislation should be prioritized so it can be passed by the end of the legislative session in June.
New York has prohibited prisons and jails from restraining pregnant women since 2009, and it has strengthened its laws since then. But the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of New York notes that state law “doesn’t apply to police stations or other custodial settings beyond prisons and jails,” creating loopholes. The organization wrote in support of Salazar and Rosenthal’s bills, which would only allow for staff members to use force against a pregnant woman as a “last resort.”
The bills also would explicitly prohibit officers from using chemical agents and tasers against incarcerated pregnant women, and they would ensure that officers are not in the room during pregnancy-related medical care.
Most states have passed legislation limiting restraints on pregnant prisoners. But, as reporter Audrey Quinn has pointed out, “in many correctional systems, doctors, guards and prison officials simply are not told about anti-shackling laws, or are not trained to comply.”
After Pennsylvania enacted anti-shackling laws in 2010, doctors told the ACLU that women in their second and third trimesters were “being restrained and handcuffed regularly during prenatal testing, transportation and even deliveries,” according to WHYY. In Illinois, 80 women filed and won a federal lawsuit against the Cook County Jail, claiming they were shackled while in labor at the jail, even though the state had outlawed shackling prisoners during childbirth since 1999. The women were later awarded a $4.1 million settlement.
Given the absurdity of shackling pregnant women during labor, it would be unsurprising if New York adopted more measures to prevent the practice for good. But the real test of anti-shackling laws’ effectiveness will be whether law enforcement follows the written law, which has been disregarded repeatedly.
