our mission

National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW) works to secure the human and civil rights, health and welfare of all women, focusing particularly on pregnant and parenting women, and those who are most vulnerable - low income women, women of color, and drug-using women. NAPW seeks to ensure that women do not lose their constitutional and human rights as a result of pregnancy, that addiction and other health and welfare problems they face during pregnancy are addressed as health issues, not as crimes; that families are not needlessly separated, based on medical misinformation; and that pregnant and parenting women have access to a full range of reproductive health services, as well as non-punitive drug treatment services. By focusing on the rights of pregnant women, NAPW broadens and strengthens the reproductive justice, drug policy reform, and other interconnected social justice movements in America today.

what's new

Press on Victory for Ms. McKnight
May 13, 2008
The Charlotte Observer , the Myrtle Beach News and papers around the country are starting to report on Ms. McKnight's victory. NAPW's Executive Director is quoted, saying: "Justice is a constant struggle, and low-income pregnant women of color who have...

NAPW Commentary Featured on Alternet
April 03, 2008
An NAPW commentary Using "Iron my shirt" to talk about the issues, is now featured on Alternet.org. It reflects NAPW's commitment to finding ways to focus public debate on key issues of concern to pregnant and parenting women. It offers...

NAPW and ACLU File Amicus Brief in Lovill v. Texas

Lillie Allen, NAPW Ally Honored by Women's E News

Regina McKnight at Post Conviction Hearing

Ms.Mcknight1.2.jpg

continued »

blog

Regina McKnight -- Victory at Long Last

May 12, 2008
Today, we were thrilled to learn that after 8 long years, the South Carolina Supreme Court has finally reversed the 20-Year Homicide Conviction of Regina McKnight. The unanimous decision recognizes that research linking cocaine to stillbirths is based on "outdated" and inaccurate medical information. NAPW has been working on behalf of Ms. McKnight for nearly 10 years. Specifically the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled that Regina McKnight did not have a fair trial when she was convicted in 2001 for homicide by child abuse. Through this conviction she became the first woman in South Carolina to be convicted of homicide by child abuse as a result of suffering an unintentional stillbirth. McKnight was arrested in 1999, several months after she experienced a stillbirth at Conway Hospital. McKnight’s conviction was based on the jury’s acceptance of the scientifically unsupported claim that her cocaine use caused the stillbirth. McKnight had no prior arrest history and even prosecutors agreed that she had no intention of harming the fetus or losing the pregnancy. Nevertheless, upon conviction she was given a twenty-year sentence, suspended to twelve years in prison with no chance for parole. She was projected to be released in 2010. The medical community has strongly opposed McKnight’s prosecution and conviction. From the beginning, leading South Carolina and national medical, public health, and child welfare organizations and experts have opposed the prosecution and conviction. These organizations—represented by us-- the National Advocates for Pregnant Women and the Drug Policy Alliance, with South Carolina counsel Susan Dunn included the South Carolina Medical Association, the South Carolina Nurses Association, the South Carolina Association of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Counselors, and the South Carolina Coalition for Healthy Families argued in an amicus (friend of the court) brief argued that women do not lose their rights to a fair trial upon becoming pregnant and challenged the state’s evidence that cocaine use or anything else that McKnight did or did not do caused the stillbirth. more »

Prosecutions in Alabama? Say No!

March 17, 2008
On Saturday March 15, 2008 the New York Times published a story, In Alabama, a Crackdown on Pregnant Drug Users. We were pleased that it did not use such stigmatizing and scientifically baseless terms as "crack" and " meth" baby. We were disappointed though that the story did not quote any experts in the field. Rather the story said: "Some doctors and advocacy groups maintain that the effects of drugs on pregnant women and their fetuses are not fully known. . ." This phrasing suggests a level of doubt that simply does not exist. It implies that arresting pregnant women who become pregnant and continue to term in spite of a drug problem might somehow be justified. In fact, every leading medical and public health group to take a position on the issue opposes prosecution of pregnant women and new mothers as counterproductive to both maternal and fetal health. Moreover, as the information we provided to the New York Times makes clear, there is no room for doubt. Virtually every leading researcher in the field of prenatal exposure to drugs has concluded that while use of these drugs should not be viewed as benign, the actual and extensive peer reviewed and published research that has been done has been unable to identify a recognizable "condition, syndrome or disorder" resulting from exposure to these drugs that would justify singling out their use as a basis for the prosecutions of pregnant women. There are many reasons to oppose the prosecution of pregnant women and new mothers. These prosecutions, if upheld would create legal precedent for the finding that women, upon becoming pregnant lose their civil and human rights. If a pregnant woman can be viewed as a child abuser before she ever gives birth, or as a murderer because she can not guarantee a healthy birth outcome, she ceases to exist as a full human being and full rights bearing citizen. Here is just one small example. Very often in these cases it is assumed that women should be able to stop their drug use when they become pregnant. But because pregnant women are no less human than other people, they too become addicted to drugs . This means that the desire and intent to stop is very often not enough to overcome the addiction. Pregnant women no less than people like Rush Limbaugh deserve compassion and treatment as they struggle with addiction not the presumption that they can simply stop. If pregnant women fail to overcome fully an addiction in the short term of pregnancy, their continued use is taken by some as evidence of a desire to harm their future child -- rather than as evidence that they are human beings and struggling like other people with the physiological and psychological ramifications of addiction. Other reasons to oppose the prosecution of pregnant women include the fact that incarcerating pregnant women in prisons and jails that do not provide adequate health care and that permit shackling of women who are pregnant and in labor will not help anyone. Moreover, arguing about prosecutions of pregnant women keeps us from talking about the lack of appropriate family drug treatment for pregnant women and parents, lack of universal health care in general, and lack of commitment to our country's mothers and children. Oh, and by the way, NAPW is working with local attorneys and advocacy organizations to challenge these prosecutions. Want to do something to help stop these cases? Send a letter/email about how these prosecutions are bad for both maternal and fetal health to: The Alabama Prosecutor: Covington County DA Greg Gambrill at gambrilg@alaweb.com; and to Alabama Governor Bob Riley, Attorney General Troy King, and Donald E. Williamson, MD at the Alabama Department of Health. more »

On the 35th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade

January 23, 2008


Read Dr. Stone's op-ed re: OKC stillbirth prosecution

December 21, 2007


Listen to segment of major Oklahoma medical panel on Women, Pregnancy, and Drug Use online

December 17, 2007


blog archive »