After the Supreme Court struck down the constitutionally protected right to abortion in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization in June 2022, the uneasiness and fear of women across the country were common discussions. And rightfully so — post-Roe, women experience challenges in accessing healthcare and doctors are placed in uncomfortable positions, caught between providing care for their patients and abiding by extreme laws and restrictions. But what isn’t discussed enough is the impact of Dobbs on women in the carceral system.

The carceral system includes not only women currently in prison or jail, but also women on probation and parole. The number of women in the carceral system is growing at an exponential rate of 525%: twice as high as that of men. There were 976,000 women under the supervision of the criminal justice system as of 2021, and according to the Prison Policy Initiative, an average of 58,000 people are pregnant each year when they enter local jails or prisons. That doesn’t even include those who get pregnant while incarcerated, nor the number of pregnant people on probation or parole. These statistics alone show the importance of evaluating the potential impact of a post-Roe world on women in the criminal justice system.

Pre-Dobbs, incarcerated individuals already faced more challenges than non-incarcerated people in accessing reproductive health care. The 1976 Supreme Court case Estelle v. Gamble established that jails and prisons are required to provide adequate healthcare, citing that “failure to address the serious medical needs of incarcerated people as a result of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.” There is no mandatory set of standards at the federal level beyond this decision, meaning states and often individual facilities can set their own policies. This is especially true for federal prisons, as the federal government allows each prison to set its own policies. As a result, there is no mandatory system of oversight or accountability for how health issues are treated, monitored, or even what is defined as a serious health issue. 

Reproductive care is often neglected due to the marginalization of women in the criminal justice system. A lack of a proper diet and regular doctor visits put women who are pregnant in prison at a higher risk of premature birth, miscarriage, and other dire health risks to both the baby and mother. It is not uncommon for a woman to miscarry or give birth in a cell alone with no doctors treating them and no other medical care available. And when women are taken to the hospital, they are often shackled to the hospital bed. This creates an uncomfortable and harsh environment to give birth in, as well as making it harder for the doctors and nurses to care for them. Not only is this a risk to the health of the mother and baby, but it also can lead to physiological trauma from feelings of dehumanization and isolation, leading to higher rates of postpartum depression and other mental health issues. The physiological trauma is exacerbated by the fact that women are separated from their children moments after they give birth, giving them little time to bond with the child before they are handed off to relatives or put in foster care. 

This is only the tip of the iceberg and doesn’t fully describe the challenges faced by women who are experiencing an unwanted pregnancy. Already facing a hostile environment to give birth in, dealing with an unwanted pregnancy while incarcerated and being forced to give birth can create a cycle of emotional and physical effects that impact women for the rest of their lives, leading to higher rates of recidivism, substance abuse, and mental health issues. Often, women in prison do not know that they have a right to access an abortion — the system seeks to make them feel powerless. When they do seek this course of action, state or local prisons could have differing restrictions depending on the facility, creating an inconsistent system of care and making it more difficult for women to know what options they have. In situations where abortions have been allowed, facilities commonly require women to cover the cost of the procedure and travel expenses. Usually having limited funds, the impact of these regulations is to make it impossible for women to access abortions. 

While abortion was already limited for incarcerated pregnant women pre-Dobbs, often through official or unofficial challenges depending on the facility that they were incarcerated in, there was a legal recourse that is now lost with the Supreme Court ruling. Women who were prevented from giving an abortion, and had the resources and the awareness of their right to access one, could sue the facility. There have been a few cases of women suing prisons and jails for the right to an abortion, with the court ruling that because Roe v. Wade established abortion as essential healthcare, jails, and prisons must facilitate this option. However, those cases were few and far between. But now that Roe v. Wade has been overturned, women who are denied abortions in states where abortion is illegal will no longer have that option and will be forced to give birth in a harsh prison environment without proper nutrition, prenatal care, and support from friends and family.

The impact of Dobbs will be different for incarcerated women across the country. While there are states that allow abortion, some facilities in that state may still restrict access. In states that do not allow access, women in the facilities across the state will be prevented from receiving care. The standard of abysmal reproductive care will continue. Women will now be forced to give birth to both wanted and unwanted pregnancies, and will suffer through all the physiological effects that come with being pregnant and giving birth while incarcerated. 

States like Oklahoma, South Dakota, Arkansas, and Kentucky with strict abortion laws already have some of the highest rates of female incarceration due to higher rates of drug enforcement and property violations, which women are more likely to be incarcerated for.  These states have also had more cases of women being abused in prison, such as sexual abuse, rape, and inhumane enforcement techniques. Texas is another prime example of this, as the state has a high number of lawsuits and allegations against prison guards at a federal women’s prison in Fort Worth, FMC Carswell. FMC Carswell, even though it is a federal prison, is in a state that restricts abortion without exceptions for rape, and will be one of the many prison populations that feels the impact of Dobbs at a disproportionate level. 

The disproportionate impact of Dobbs is not just true for women currently incarcerated but also extends to women on probation and parole. Because they are under constant surveillance by the court and probation/parole officers, they have no privacy or control over their movements. So, even in states where abortion is allowed, women under court surveillance will have to inform the officer in charge of their case before accessing an abortion. This could lead to challenges in accessing abortions depending on the personal beliefs of the officer and the processing time of the request for an abortion. In states where abortion is banned, women under court surveillance will likely not be able to access an abortion at all because of the difficulty of leaving the state. Although companies have pledged to delete data and help women cross state lines to access abortions, women under court care cannot access this aid. They will likely be forced to give birth because of limited resources and privacy that takes away their ability to choose what is right for themselves and their bodies. 
Although abortion bans are a state matter and unlikely to change anytime soon, it is important to be aware of the impact of the Dobbs decision on women in the carceral system. While the struggle for women living in states with strict abortion bans has been well-documented following the overturning of Roe v. Wade by the Supreme Court, the impact on women in the carceral system has been ignored. Abortion bans are largely out of our hands, but providing coverage to increase awareness and engaging in open conversations on the struggles that women who are pregnant while in the carceral system face is one of the most important things that we can do. It is through raising awareness that we can encourage officials to recognize the importance of providing resources for reproductive health and access for women in the criminal justice system and create a system of accountability that leads to better treatment of women under their care. If government officials are insistent on limiting the control women have over their bodies, they must take accountability for the level of care women receive while pregnant, and this standard should extend to women in the criminal justice system. It is time for better access to prenatal and reproductive care, better nutrition, higher standards of mental health care, safer birthing environments, and more accountability to ensure that women who are incarcerated are not subject to sexual, physical, or emotional abuse. Women have been marginalized in the criminal justice system for years, and the Dobbs decision is just the most recent reminder of that fact. If you would like to support women and organizations fighting for better reproductive access for women in the criminal justice system, ARRWIP and the Women’s Prison Association are great options.