NY Court Affirms Right of Pregnant Women to Move Freely
Last week, the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division rejected a lower Family Court's ruling that a woman's decision to move across the country while pregnant was tantamount to "appropriation of the child while in utero" and therefore could bar her custody case from being heard in her new location.
The lower Family Court had found in May that petitioner Sara McK's decision to relocate from California to New York to attend Columbia University while pregnant could bar New York courts from hearing her child custody case. The Family Court referee departed from typical custody statute - that custody cases be heard in a child's home state, in this case New York, where the child was born - based on the "appropriation" characterization. This interpretation of the statute placed unconstitutional constraints on a woman's basic decisions, such as where she lives, works, and attends school while pregnant. It also meant fathers could limit the movement of pregnant women.
The recent decision to reject the earlier ruling "affirms that women who become pregnant may not be penalized for exercising their rights to travel and to seek an education," said Lynn Paltrow, executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women.
The Appellate Division's ruling made clear that courts cannot hear custody matters that are filed prior to birth, and that McK's relocation should not have factored into the lower Family Court's finding.
In several other cases, the rights of pregnant women have been restricted in the name of protecting the fetus. One pregnant woman was detained after trying to get help for her painkiller use, and another was charged with attempted feticide after a suicide attempt.
Media Resources: National Advocated for Pregnant Women 11/18/13; NYCourts.gov 11/14/13; RH Reality Check 11/15/13
10/30/2014 Medication Abortion Access Threatened by Oklahoma Court Ruling - An Oklahoma state district court judge has refused to block a state law restricting medication abortion, clearing the way for the law to go into affect on November 1.
The Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice, together with a local abortion clinic in Tulsa, challenged HB 2684 in September, arguing that the law was an unconstitutional restriction on non-surgical abortion in the earliest weeks of pregnancy. . . .
10/30/2014 UPS Switches Pregnant Worker Policy Ahead of Supreme Court Case - The United Parcel Service (UPS) is changing its policy on light duty assignments for pregnant workers, even though the company will stand by its refusal to extend accommodations to a former employee in an upcoming Supreme Court case.
UPS announced on Monday in a memo to employees, and in a brief filed with the US Supreme Court, that the company will begin offering temporary, light-duty positions to pregnant workers on January 1, 2015. . . .
10/30/2014 North Dakota Medical Students Speak Out Against Measure 1 - Medical students at the University of North Dakota School of Medicine and Health Sciences are asking North Dakotans to vote no on Measure 1, a personhood measure on the state ballot this fall.
The students issued published a letter in the Grand Forks Herald stating that they opposed Measure 1 in part because they are against "the government's taking control of the personal health care decisions of its citizens." Nearly 60 UND School of Medicine students signed the letter, citing concerns over the "very broad and ambiguous language" used in the proposed amendment, which has no regard for serious and life-threatening medical situations such as ectopic pregnancies.
Measure 1 would change the North Dakota state constitution to create an "inalienable right to life" for humans "at any stage of development" - including the moment of fertilization and conception. . . .