Agencies | Governor
Virginia Regulatory Town Hall
Department of Corrections
State Board of Local and Regional Jails
Minimum Standards for Jails and Lockups [6 VAC 15 ‑ 40]
Action Amend Minimum Standards for Jails and Lockups to add requirements on restraint of pregnant offenders
Stage Proposed
Comment Period Ends 9/27/2013
Previous Comment     Next Comment     Back to List of Comments
9/26/13  12:25 pm
Commenter: William Solomon

Restraints on Pregnant inmates

Since Restraining a pregnant woman can pose undue health risks to the woman and her pregnancy I commend the Board of Corrections’ prior approval of proposed regulations limiting the use of restraints on pregnant inmates. I thank the Board for implementing a compassionate and commonsense policy, and urge the Board to make these proposed regulations final when they vote again at the close of this public comment period. Freedom from physical restraints is especially critical during labor, delivery, and during postpartum recovery.  Restraining pregnant women is dangerous and inhumane.

However, right now, the proposed regulations do not provide meaningful oversight through public reporting. Therefore I urge the Board of Corrections to include a strong public reporting requirement in the regulations to ensure accountability for and compliance with the regulations.

The vast majority of female prisoners are non-violent offenders who pose a low security risk—particularly during labor and postpartum recovery.  In the states that have outlawed restraint of pregnant inmates, there have been no documented instances of a woman in labor or delivery escaping or causing harm to themselves, corrections officers, or medical staff.

National correctional and medical associations oppose the restraint of pregnant women because it is unnecessary and harmful to a woman and her pregnancy. These important agencies have recognized that restraining women during labor, delivery, and postpartum recovery is unnecessary and dangerous to a woman’s health and well being and may harm her child.


CommentID: 29091