BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2530
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 25, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 2530 (Atkins) - As Amended: March 29, 2012
Policy Committee: Public
SafetyVote: 6-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill prohibits state and local inmates or wards who are
pregnant or in delivery recovery from being restrained by leg
irons, waist chains or handcuffs behind the body, unless deemed
necessary for security reasons. Requires inmates and wards to be
restrained in the least restrictive way possible, consistent
with security needs. This bill also:
1)Requires, upon confirmation of an inmate or ward pregnancy,
that the inmate or ward be advised, orally or in writing, of
policies governing pregnant inmates.
2)Requires that the Board of State and Community Corrections
(BSCC), in its minimum standards for correctional facilities,
specify that a woman known to be pregnant or in recovery after
delivery shall not be restrained, unless necessary for
security purposes, and requires the BSCC to develop standards
regarding the restraint of pregnant inmates and wards at the
next biennial review of the standards after this bill's
passage, and review individual facilities' compliance with the
standards.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Minor, presumably absorbable, costs to BSCC to develop
standards and regulations regarding issues board personnel
should have considerable familiarity with, considering the
Corrections Standards Authority (CSA) (the predecessor to
BSCC) has adopted related regulations for state facilities.
2)In that this bill does not require local or state detention
AB 2530
Page 2
facilities to provide additional services, beyond not
shackling pregnant inmates and informing them of this right,
and given that current law already requires pregnant inmates
and wards to be transported in the least restrictive way
possible, any state or local fiscal exposure should prove
minimal.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The author's intent is to expand the prohibition
against shackling pregnant wards and inmates during
transportation to a medical facility and during labor, to the
entire pregnancy.
According to the author, "Pregnant women are frequently
shackled by the ankles, wrists, belly, behind the back, and
even to other people while being transported to and from
correctional facilities causing many to fall. Studies
indicate that the incidence of minor trauma, especially from
falls, increases as pregnancy progresses and excessive
shackling poses undue health risks to a woman throughout her
pregnancy.
"Pregnant women in correctional facilities are more likely to
experience miscarriage, preeclampsia, preterm birth, and low
birth-weight infants. The added stress of maneuvering with
excessive restraints could lead to further complications while
rendering doctors unable to treat them properly. "
2)Current Law :
a) Specifies that pregnant prison inmates be transported in
the least restrictive way possible when transported to and
from a prison, consistent with security needs. Upon arrival
at the hospital, once the inmate is in active labor and
recovery, the inmate shall not be shackled by the wrists or
ankles, unless deemed necessary for safety and security.
b) Requires CSA/BSCC to establish minimum standards for
state and local correctional facilities, including that a
woman in active labor not be shackled by the wrists or
ankles during transport to a hospital, during delivery, and
while in recovery, unless necessary for safety and
security.
AB 2530
Page 3
c) Specifies a juvenile ward shall not be shackled by the
wrists or ankles during labor, including during transport
to a hospital, during delivery, and while in recovery after
giving birth, subject to the security needs. Pregnant
wards temporarily taken to a hospital outside the facility
for the purposes of childbirth shall be transported in the
least restrictive way possible, consistent with the
legitimate security needs. Upon arrival at the hospital,
once in active labor, the ward shall not be shackled by the
wrists or ankles, unless deemed necessary for the safety
and security.
3)Two similar bills have been vetoed.
a) AB 568 (Skinner), 2011, was similar to this bill. Gov.
Brown stated:
"At first blush, I was inclined to sign this bill because
it certainly seems inappropriate to shackle a pregnant
inmate unless absolutely necessary. However, the language
of this measure goes too far, prohibiting not only
shackling, but also the use of handcuffs or restraints of
any kind except under ill-defined circumstances.
"Let's be clear. Inmates, whether pregnant or not, need to
be transported in a manner that is safe for them and
others. The restrictive criteria set forth in this bill go
beyond what is necessary to protect the health and dignity
of pregnant inmates and will only serve to sow confusion
and invite lawsuits."
AB 2530 bill attempts to address the governor's stated
concerns by more explicitly allowing restraints if deemed
necessary for the safety and security of the inmate, staff,
or public.
b) AB 1900 (Skinner), 2010, was similar to AB 568 was
vetoed by Gov. Schwarzenegger, who criticized the
requirement that CSA develop guidelines concerning the
shackling of pregnant inmates and wards during transport.
The governor stated that CSA's mission is to regulate and
develop standards for correctional facilities, not
establish policies on transportation issues to and from
AB 2530
Page 4
other locations.
To address the governor's stated concerns, AB 568 in
included a legislative finding that CSA has the authority
to issue such standards for transportation of inmates.
4) Support . According to the American Congress of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists, District IX, "Restraints
pose serious risks to the pregnant woman when medical
complications occur and physical access required for
treatment by medical personnel is severely restricted. Many
of our physicians have reported harrowing stories of
attempting to treat pregnant women who were not in labor
but had other life-threatening medical conditions. The
restraints rendered it virtually impossible to provide the
urgently needed care."
5) Opposition . According to the California State Sheriffs'
Association, "simple and clear" guidelines already exist.
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081