Analysis Law and Policy

Murder by Nursing?

Emily Horowitz

Stephanie Greene is being charged with murder. Her crime? Breastfeeding her newborn.

Stephanie Greene is being charged with murder. Her crime? Breastfeeding her newborn.

The unexpected death of a 5 ½ – week-old infant is a mind-numbing tragedy. Facing murder charges in the face of that death is an inconceivable horror. Yet this is happening to Stephanie Greene, 37, a woman currently facing homicide by child abuse charges.

Stephanie lives in Campobello, South Carolina. Prosecutors allege that Stephanie took so much prescription medication that her daughter Alexis died of a morphine overdose ingested via breast milk. The coroner’s report shows the cause of death as drug overdose, because the infant had an elevated blood level of morphine. The case is complicated; because there is no question that Stephanie takes a significant amount of prescription medication for documented physical ailments (i.e. fibromyalgia, chronic pain, high blood pressure) resulting from a near-fatal car accident a few years ago, including MS Contin (a drug that metabolizes as morphine).

In the hospital, Stephanie did not reveal that she was taking any medications at all, even though she was asked multiple times by multiple people. Stephanie was sheepish when asked about this. Stephanie says she knew that her medication use would open her up to suspicion. South Carolina is the state, after all, notorious for shackling new mothers to their hospital beds if they (or their infants) tested positive for illegal drugs – and removing infants to foster care and the mothers to jail. Although the Supreme Court ruled this practice illegal, Stephanie had been a nurse in South Carolina long enough to know she was in a state where mothers and pregnant women who use or abuse drugs are viewed with special contempt.

Appreciate our work?

Vote now! And help Rewire earn a bigger grant from CREDO:

VOTE NOW

Stephanie was aware that her use of strong opioids (especially morphine) would raise suspicion. South Carolina has aggressively (and, according to legal advocates, illegally) prosecuted women who unintentionally miscarry a fetus after illegal drug use. Although the state has come under fire from advocates for these racist (although Stephanie is white, almost all the women convicted of this charge have been African-American and poor) and problematic policies, a woman like Stephanie knew it was not a good idea to openly discuss her painkiller use while in the hospital.

Stephanie’s lawyer, C. Rauch Wise (known as “Rock”), a noted local defense attorney, has represented a number of women facing similar charges, although he is unaware of others charged with homicide by child abuse as a result of breastfeeding. “What’s scary to me,” Rock explains, “is that the state thinks enough of a drug can be distributed through breast milk to kill a baby.” Wise says that South Carolina takes advantage of their Whitner decision, a ruling that allows the state to use child neglect and homicide laws to punish pregnant women who use drugs. Organizations like National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW), a group devoted to defending the civil and human rights of pregnant women, recognizes the peculiar harshness of South Carolina, noting that: “Every state court of last resort and all intermediate appellate courts that have addressed this issue have rejected the approach taken by the South Carolina Supreme Court in the Whitner case.”

Wise views Stephanie’s case as something even more ominous than Whitner, and thinks if Stephanie goes to prison, women will be scared to breastfeed and will think they have the power to kill their infants – a power that is a point of significant scientific debate and controversy.

After arriving home, Stephanie says a lactation consultant from the hospital called to see how she was doing with her breastfeeding. Stephanie revealed her medications to the consultant – including the MS Contin. The consultant referred her to a website run by NIH with a comprehensive list of drugs and their compatibility with breastfeeding. The consultant told Stephanie she got all of her information from the site, and Stephanie accessed it and found the that morphine is relatively safe for nursing mothers, with breast milk levels ranging from “trivial” to “quite low.”

After being discharged from the hospital, nothing unusual was noted by the doctors or nurses, nor was anything unusual noted with either Stephanie or Alexis during their 4-week pediatric visit or by a visit to a pediatric ophthalmologist (recommended because of an eye cyst). In the days just before Alexis died, she had a cold and stuffy nose. Stephanie called the pediatrician who told her to use a vaporizer and vapor rub to help the baby breathe (which Stephanie did), which she did, but to only bring her to the office if fever was present (which Stephanie didn’t, because it wasn’t).

Stephanie spent all her time with newborn Alexis, caring for her like any new mother, and family photos show her older siblings and extended family doting on the new baby. Randy, Stephanie’s husband, strongly asserts that he would have noticed if Stephanie was under the influence or impaired in any way, and Homer, Stephanie’s father, stopped by the house almost every day after Alexis was born, and he too forcefully says that Stephanie was doing all she possibly could for the new baby and was not neglectful in any way.

At 12:30am, on November 13, 2010, Alexis awoke and Stephanie fed her – and then fell back to sleep next to Stephanie and Randy in bed. At 3:30am, Randy awoke and noticed something was wrong with the baby (“she felt cold,” he says). Stephanie realized Alexis was not breathing, and immediately began infant CPR. Randy called 911 and paramedics arrived, but they were unable to resuscitate Alexis and she was pronounced dead.

Stephanie doesn’t remember what happened next. The coroner says he has a video of Stephanie when he arrived at the house that same morning where she appears “under the influence”. Another report claims that Stephanie smoked when they arrived and appeared unconcerned. Stephanie and Randy say none of this is true, except for the fact that she was smoking (she and Randy are both smokers). Obviously, they were in shock, and it seems pointless and cruel to critique the behavior of any parents in the hours after learning of the death of a child.

Stephanie and Randy tried to move on with their lives and mourn Alexis. They were totally shocked when on June 7, 2011, 9 months after Alexis died, Stephanie was arrested. Initial reports say Stephanie used fraudulent prescriptions morphine and was “doctor-shopping.” National and international outlets picked up the story about the “morphine mom” who nursed her baby to death.

A spokesperson for the county sheriff, Tony Ivey, was quoted in these reports saying that that toxicology proves that the infant died directly from medication ingested from Stephanie’s breast milk, and that Stephanie is fully responsible for the death of the infant, noting “Taking care of children and raising children is very serious business, and if you’re taking medication or whatever, follow the doctor’s guidelines, consult your doctor, because this is something that should never have happened to an infant child like that. It had no control over this whatsoever and the mother should’ve known better.”

In spite of what Ivey says, official records show that Stephanie was taking medication prescribed by the same doctors she had seen regularly over the past few years for her various ailments, and that she received all her prescriptions from the same pharmacy. Her doctors continued to prescribe medication after the death of Alexis and only stopped following Stephanie’s arrest.

In a similar Canadian case, a woman was charged with murder after her baby allegedly died after ingesting morphine-tainted breast milk. It turned out the woman was a “rapid metabolizer” of morphine, and extremely high levels of morphine were transferred to her breast milk. In that case, the woman was prescribed morphine for postpartum pain, and doctors regularly prescribe morphine to postpartum women because of its relative safety and few side effects. The La Leche League has even issued a statement saying that morphine is safe to take while nursing.

Did Stephanie try to hurt her baby? No. Was Stephanie neglectful because she breastfed her infant while taking prescription drugs? No. Any mother will tell you that breastfeeding can be more difficult than formula feeding. Mothers who can’t nurse for physical reasons often suffer tremendous guilt – particularly when they see research about the often-hyped benefits of breastfeeding.

The notion that one would nurse a baby to death makes as much sense as cuddling or snuggling someone to death. Stephanie nursed her baby out of love and affection, and this is not something that can be questioned – by definition, nursing can never be an act of violence or harm.

After 4 weeks in jail, Stephanie was released on a $100,000 bond in July 2011. Stephanie was under house arrest and had to wear a 24-hour-monitoring bracelet for 6 months. The family struggled to pay the $136.50 weekly fees for the bracelet. Stephanie was relived when it was finally removed on January 20, but she still can’t be alone with her 3 minor children (ages 5, 12, and 14). Her attorney is baffled by the extreme restrictions, noting that Stephanie is clearly not a flight risk because she has lived her entire life in the area, has 4 other children, and put the home of her mother-in-law up for her bond.

Why prosecute Stephanie? Breastfeeding while taking medication is almost always safe. There is little funding for research about the safety of medication and breastfeeding, and women are mostly left on their own to learn about what medications are compatible with breastfeeding. It is an open secret, now documented widely on websites and blogs, that doctors will recommend weaning and will always say medications are unsafe for breastfeeding to avoid lawsuits.

Dr. Sears, a Harvard-trained expert on child health, advises that there are risks involved with weaning and exclusive formula-feeding that can be as significant as the effects of medication transmitted via breast milk. He notes that physicians often advise women to wean when they aren’t sure about the effects of medication in breast milk, and that it is “impossible” for physicians to always keep up with the latest research about drugs in breast milk. He writes: “The risks of exposing a baby to a drug in breast milk should be weighed against the known risks of exposing a baby to infant formula while depriving him of breast milk…. Be aware that often what a mother is told about taking a medication about breastfeeding is based more on legal considerations than scientific knowledge. The information available from pharmaceutical companies about a drug…. often advises mothers not to breastfeed while taking a drug, but this advice reflects the company’s desire to protect itself from lawsuits and to avoid having to do expensive research that would allow it to say a certain drug is safe.” Women know not to ask their doctors if they should breastfeed if they are taking medication, because they know the answer – so they don’t ask.

When every single drug has a warning that breastfeeding mothers should consult their physician before ingesting, it numbs women to the reality that some drugs might actually be harmful to their babies. Add to that a medical profession that puts forth contradictory messages about breastfeeding, and with a legitimate paranoia about lawsuits, and women are not going to feel comfortable being honest with their healthcare providers about their medication. Further, when mothers read about the myriad benefits of breastfeeding, many desperately want to breastfeed at any cost (for example, in a recent Harper’s article, the French feminist Elizabeth Badinter points out that there are actually dangers to the extreme hype about breastfeeding, and argues that the interpretations of the existing studies about the benefits of breastfeeding are often exaggerated. Badinter notes that women who don’t breastfeed are now considered “bad” mothers – and there is little or no hype about the many alternate studies that show that formula-feeding does not necessarily doom a child to disease, a low IQ, and psychological disorders).

Dr. Steven Karch, an expert witness for the defense, is a leading expert in the field of drug related death and author of the authoritative textbook in the field, Karch’s Pathology of Drug Abuse. Karch believes that that there is no chance that a baby can die from morphine absorbed solely through breast-milk when the mother does not have a genetic defect.  Stephanie took morphine for many years and it is highly unlikely that she has this defect because she always tolerated morphine without a problem. According to Dr. Karch this genetic defect is exceedingly rare (and requires an expensive and difficult test), so it is still routinely prescribed for nursing mothers.

Most significantly, the coroner’s office says that Alexis had levels of morphine that exceeded 500 ng/ML. This is absurd, says Dr. Karch, and there is “zero possibility” that Alexis could have morphine levels this high after ingesting breastmilk from a mother taking any amount of prescribed morphine. By contrast, the infant in the Canadian case had levels of only 70 ng/ML. In the latest version of his textbook, Karch explains that it one cannot determine breast milk drug transmission without testing the mother’s milk, writing, “the only really accurate way to measure breast milk drug transmission is to collect the entire volume of milk from both breasts over 24 hours, then measure both the volume of milk and the amount of drug contained in it. This is difficult to do, and has not been done either for morphine or heroin in humans. However, when studies have been done on other drugs, such as prednisolone, fentanyl, and propofol and, more recently hydrocodone and hydromorphone, the amount of drug actually transmitted has been such a small percentage of the amount given to the mother that most experts see little need to discontinue breast feeding (normally, a nursing mother having elective surgery is advised to discard her milk for 24 hours).” According to Karch, in order to establish that drug-tainted breast-milk is the cause of infant death, one has to test the breast-milk from the mother and not only the blood levels of the infant – something that did not happen in Stephanie’s case.

In California, a woman is currently facing manslaughter charges for breastfeeding after taking methamphetamine, and women have been prosecuted for the same crime since the early 1990s. Dr. Karch points out that the science behind these cases is also flimsy, noting methamphetamine has been used for many years as a treatment for various conditions, including narcolepsy, and earlier research saw limited negative effects in nursing infants. He explains that infants absorb drugs in different ways than adults, and that drugs needs to bind to certain receptors in order to bind and do damage. “Babies,” says Dr. Karch, “don’t have a lot of those receptors, and newborns therefore don’t have even places for drugs to bind.” In most of the other documented cases of breastfeeding-related deaths, women plead guilty to lesser charges so they didn’t have to face trial. In one case, a breastfeeding infant was found to have a tiny amount (.266 micrograms) of methamphetamine in her blood, and the coroner concluded that the infant died of methamphetamine poisoning. The mother pled guilty to child endangerment and spent six years in prison, even though the coroner admitted that they weren’t sure what exact amount of methamphetamine could cause an infant death.

Why are women being prosecuted for murdering infants via breastfeeding when the science is so questionable? Clearly, prosecutors are deciding that women who use drugs are easy targets for public outrage and deserve punishment. On some level, it doesn’t matter if the drugs actually caused the death in the eyes of the prosecution. The idea of a mother taking drugs and breastfeeding causes outrage, and if a baby with a drug-using mother dies this only increases moral panic and demands for justice.

Are women who use drugs and get pregnant and/or breastfeed criminals? While the medical community overwhelmingly sees drug addiction as a public health problem, our social welfare system contradicts this when they seek to punish or intervene in punitive ways when pregnant and breastfeeding women use drugs. These policies, that appear well meaning and obvious – after all, no one thinks it is good if a pregnant or nursing mother abuses drugs – effectively and subtly undermine efforts to promote public health and welfare and, in turn, expand the war on drugs and abortion rights. Women can’t be prosecuted for having abortions or seeking birth control, but they can be punished for behaviors that supposedly end pregnancies or harm newborns – even though there is little scientific basis behind these charges. As NAPW points out, the women who are most harmed by these laws are overwhelming poor and lack access to health care and drug treatment. NAPW lawyers argue that are actually no laws that authorize prosecuting pregnant or nursing women for drug use, yet they are continuing to happen –and this is what needs to be questioned and challenged by lawyers, advocates for women’s rights, and well as the public health community.

In 1998, an impoverished woman named Tina Rodriguez was convicted in Texas for intentionally killing her son by starvation. The baby had milk in his stomach when he died, something that doesn’t happen when someone is starved, and she breastfed him (and bottle-fed) him regularly, but nevertheless Rodriguez was convicted of murder. Her post-conviction lawyer presented testimony of a nutrition specialist and a pediatric expert in malnutrition who studied the autopsy report and concluded that he may have died from a rare genetic defect that prevented him from metabolizing the milk he drank. Rodriguez lost her appeal and, despite reasonable doubts, and is serving 38 years in a Texas prison, in spite of substantial scientific evidence that she did nothing wrong.

Why is so easy to believe that women like Tina Rodriquez and Stephanie Greene want to harm their babies by neglect or intention? The moral panic about adults deliberately harming children in their care is an unfortunate reality of modern times. From hysteria about sex rings at day care centers to myths about poisoned Halloween candy, our culture is transfixed and obsessed with the idea that adults want to deliberately harm children. Adults in playgrounds without children are breaking the law, as are parents who allow their children to ride bikes without helmets. If a child is hurt in a playground, it is because their parents weren’t watching them and they should be arrested or because the playground equipment is dangerous and the designers should be sued. It is not possible that sometimes kids get hurt when they play – that is what scares us. The police state we live in makes everything a crime, especially when children are harmed. An adult must have caused this – accidents don’t happen in a society where everyone is either a victim or a perpetrator.

Mothers like Stephanie Greene and Tina Rodriguez are easy targets in this social context, because they make us feel good about ourselves. Her baby dies, but it couldn’t happen to us because we are different – we would never breastfeed after taking morphine and we would notice if our baby wasn’t metabolizing milk properly. It is too horrible to think that babies die for no reason, or that we can’t always protect our children, or that parents make mistakes. We are scared to allow our children to walk to school even in the “safest” suburbs or ride bikes without helmets – if we can afford it, we send our children to private schools when we live in neighborhoods with the very best public to have more control over their lives. Children in poor neighborhoods are on the path to being criminals, because their poverty itself is a crime, so we justify searching them with metal detectors when they go to school. If they die, we jump to their defense and arrest the parents, but, if they live, we treat them like potential criminals in the same way that we treat their parents like potential criminals. In Florida, the recent effort to drug test adults who receive welfare benefits because they are getting money from taxpayers highlights our contempt, distrust, and hatred of the poor.

If a healthy infant dies, there must be a reason – and the reason must someone who is different than us. Stephanie Greene is a monster, mocked on websites “Bad Breeders,” a place where horrible parents (mostly poor and drug-addicted) are ridiculed and targeted.

Medical associations and drug companies don’t establish hard and solid rules about pregnancy and breastfeeding and drug use because the science just isn’t there. Smoking and alcohol can contribute to miscarriages and hurt babies, and there are numerous public awareness campaigns preaching the negative effects of these behaviors, yet women still smoke and drink while pregnant and while nursing –women are not prosecuted for these behaviors. NAPW also points out that women who use drugs and pregnant and breastfeed are not being punished for using drugs but are actually being punished for being pregnant and not terminating the pregnancy. If they used drugs and terminated the pregnancy, there would not be a prosecution – the state is thus prosecuting women for being pregnant or nursing, and not for using drugs, and this is unlawful because it is essentially punishing women for having babies in spite of having a drug or health problem (like Stephanie).

Making efforts to prosecute women for killing their infants with tainted breast milk is similar to the crack-baby hysteria. In the 1980s, the media reported an epidemic of birth defects and brain damage resulting from pregnant women using crack. Yet, in 2005, University of Florida researchers Dr. Fonda Eyler, PhD, a developmental psychologist, and Dr. Marylou Behnke, MD, a neonatologist found that babies exposed to cocaine during pregnancy were no more likely to have birth defects than other babies. Interestingly, the mothers in the study were offered help but few accepted because of a state policy that often removed children from mothers in drug rehab centers. It is policies like these that discourage drug treatment and increase the likelihood that women with drug problems won’t seek help.

The effort to prosecute Stephanie Greene is a witch-hunt. Stephanie breastfed because she believed she was doing the best for her baby, and because she depended on prescribed medication to manage her medically-documented chronic pain. Women who use illegal drugs are not much different – they are drug-dependent but they want to love and nurse their infants.  The idea of a drug using pregnant or breastfeeding mother is shocking and upsetting, but there isn’t enough scientific evidence that it is the sole or primary cause of infant.  Women who use drugs and are pregnant or nursing need help and objective sources of information – not prison. Women have legal and civil rights even if they get pregnant and nurse babies, these cases violate their constitutional rights because they are not about drug use but about pregnancy. Pregnant and nursing women have human rights, and punishing their behaviors puts them in a special category that violates the reality that we all have equal protection under the law. Stephanie Greene might have been dependent on prescription drugs, but she didn’t kill her baby.

Stephanie and Randy and the rest of their family are still mourning the loss of their baby. They also have to prepare for an expensive legal battle as well as the nightmare of waiting for a criminal trial that could result in a prison sentence. After Alexis died they put up a memorial webpage for her, and Stephanie posted this on the day of her funeral: “Lexi was born “sunny side up”, and she was so sunny, such a good baby, such an angel in life, really the sunshine of our lives. We miss her beyond words…”

Culture & Conversation Media

Filmmaker Tracy Droz Tragos Centers Abortion Stories in New Documentary

Renee Bracey Sherman

The film arrives at a time when personal stories are center stage in the national conversation about abortion, including in the most recent Supreme Court decision, and rightly so. The people who actually have and provide abortions should be driving the narrative, not misinformation and political rhetoric.

This piece is published in collaboration with Echoing Ida, a Forward Together project.

A new film by producer and director Tracy Droz Tragos, Abortion: Stories Women Tell, profiles several Missouri residents who are forced to drive across the Mississippi River into Illinois for abortion care.

The 93-minute film features interviews with over 20 women who have had or are having abortions, most of whom are Missouri residents traveling to the Hope Clinic in Granite City, Illinois, which is located about 15 minutes from downtown St. Louis.

Like Mississippi, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming, Missouri has only one abortion clinic in the entire state.

Appreciate our work?

Vote now! And help Rewire earn a bigger grant from CREDO:

VOTE NOW

The women share their experiences, painting a more nuanced picture that shows why one in three women of reproductive age often seek abortion care in the United States.

The film arrives at a time when personal stories are center stage in the national conversation about abortion, including in the most recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, and rightly so. The people who actually have and provide abortions should be driving the narrative, not misinformation and political rhetoric. But while I commend recent efforts by filmmakers like Droz Tragos and others to center abortion stories in their projects, these creators still have far to go when it comes to presenting a truly diverse cadre of storytellers if they really want to shift the conversation around abortion and break down reproductive stigma.

In the wake of Texas’ omnibus anti-abortion law, which was at the heart of the Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt Supreme Court case, Droz Tragos, a Missouri native, said in a press statement she felt compelled to document how her home state has been eroding access to reproductive health care. In total, Droz Tragos interviewed 81 people with a spectrum of experiences to show viewers a fuller picture of the barriersincluding legislation and stigmathat affect people seeking abortion care.

Similar to HBO documentaries about abortion that have come before it—including 12th & Delaware and Abortion: Desperate ChoicesAbortion: Stories Women Tell involves short interviews with women who are having and have had abortions, conversations with the staff of the Hope Clinic about why they do the work they do, interviews with local anti-choice organizers, and footage of anti-choice protesters shouting at patients, along with beautiful shots of the Midwest landscape and the Mississippi River as patients make road trips to appointments. There are scenes of clinic escorts holding their ground as anti-choice protesters yell Bible passages and obscenities at them. One older clinic escort carries a copy of Living in the Crosshairs as a protester follows her to her car, shouting. The escort later shares her abortion story.

One of the main storytellers, Amie, is a white 30-year-old divorced mother of two living in Boonville, Missouri. She travels over 100 miles each way to the Hope Clinic, and the film chronicles her experience in getting an abortion and follow-up care. Almost two-thirds of people seeking abortions, like Amie, are already a parent. Amie says that the economic challenges of raising her other children make continuing the pregnancy nearly impossible. She describes being physically unable to carry a baby and work her 70 to 90 hours a week. Like many of the storytellers in the film, Amie talks about the internalized stigma she’s feeling, the lack of support she has from loved ones, and the fear of family members finding out. She’s resilient and determined; a powerful voice.

The film also follows Kathy, an anti-choice activist from Bloomfield, Missouri, who says she was “almost aborted,” and that she found her calling in the anti-choice movement when she noticed “Anne” in the middle of the name “Planned Parenthood.” Anne is Kathy’s middle name.

“OK Lord, are you telling me that I need to get in the middle of this?” she recalls thinking.

The filmmakers interview the staff of the Hope Clinic, including Dr. Erin King, a pregnant abortion provider who moved from Chicago to Granite City to provide care and who deals with the all-too-common protesting of her home and workplace. They speak to Barb, a talkative nurse who had an abortion 40 years earlier because her nursing school wouldn’t have let her finish her degree while she was pregnant. And Chi Chi, a security guard at the Hope Clinic who is shown talking back to the protesters judging patients as they walk into the clinic, also shares her abortion story later in the film. These stories remind us that people who have abortions are on the frontlines of this work, fighting to defend access to care.

To address the full spectrum of pregnancy experiences, the film also features the stories of a few who, for various reasons, placed their children for adoption or continued to parent. While the filmmakers interview Alexis, a pregnant Black high school student whose mother died when she was 8 years old, classmates can be heard in the distance tormenting her, asking if she’s on the MTV reality show 16 and Pregnant. She’s visibly distraught and crying, illustrating the “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” conundrum women of color experiencing unintended pregnancy often face.

Te’Aundra, another young Black woman, shares her story of becoming pregnant just as she received a college basketball scholarship. She was forced to turn down the scholarship and sought an adoption, but the adoption agency refused to help her since the child’s father wouldn’t agree to it. She says she would have had an abortion if she could start over again.

While anti-choice rhetoric has conflated adoption as the automatic abortion alternative, research has shown that most seeking adoption are personally debating between adoption and parenting. This is illustrated in Janet’s story, a woman with a drug addiction who was raising one child with her partner, but wasn’t able to raise a second, so she sought an adoption. These stories are examples of the many societal systems failing those who choose adoption or students raising families, in addition to those fighting barriers to abortion access.

At times, the film feels repetitive and disjointed, but the stories are powerful. The range of experiences and reasons for having an abortion (or seeking adoption) bring to life the data points too often ignored by politicians and the media: everything from economic instability and fetal health, to domestic violence and desire to finish an education. The majority of abortion stories featured were shared by those who already had children. Their stories had a recurring theme of loneliness and lack of support from their loved ones and friends at a time when they needed it. Research has shown that 66 percent of people who have abortions tend to only tell 1.24 people about their experience, leaving them keeping a secret for fear of judgment and shame.

While many cite financial issues when paying for abortions or as the reason for not continuing the pregnancy, the film doesn’t go in depth about how the patients come to pay for their abortions—which is something my employer, the National Network for Abortion Funds (NNAF), directly addresses—or the systemic issues that created their financial situations.

However, it brings to light the hypocrisy of our nation, where the invisible hand of our society’s lack of respect for pregnant people and working parents can force people to make pregnancy decisions based on economic situations rather than a desire to be pregnant or parent.

“I’m not just doing this for me” is a common phrase when citing having an abortion for existing or future children.

Overall, the film is moving simply because abortion stories are moving, especially for audiences who don’t have the opportunity to have someone share their abortion story with them personally. I have been sharing my abortion story for five years and hearing someone share their story with me always feels like a gift. I heard parts of my own story in those shared; however, I felt underrepresented in this film that took place partly in my home state of Illinois. While people of color are present in the film in different capacities, a racial analysis around the issues covered in the film is non-existent.

Race is a huge factor when it comes to access to contraception and reproductive health care; over 60 percent of people who have abortions are people of color. Yet, it took 40 minutes for a person of color to share an abortion story. It seemed that five people of color’s abortion stories were shown out of the over 20 stories, but without actual demographic data, I cannot confirm how all the film’s storytellers identify racially. (HBO was not able to provide the demographic data of the storytellers featured in the film by press time.)

It’s true that racism mixed with sexism and abortion stigma make it more difficult for people of color to speak openly about their abortion stories, but continued lack of visual representation perpetuates that cycle. At a time when abortion storytellers themselves, like those of NNAF’s We Testify program, are trying to make more visible a multitude of identities based on race, sexuality, immigration status, ability, and economic status, it’s difficult to give a ringing endorsement of a film that minimizes our stories and relegates us to the second half of a film, or in the cases of some of these identities, nowhere at all. When will we become the central characters that reality and data show that we are?

In July, at the progressive conference Netroots Nation, the film was screened followed by an all-white panel discussion. I remember feeling frustrated at the time, both because of the lack of people of color on the panel and because I had planned on seeing the film before learning about a march led by activists from Hands Up United and the Organization for Black Struggle. There was a moment in which I felt like I had to choose between my Blackness and my abortion experience. I chose my Black womanhood and marched with local activists, who under the Black Lives Matter banner have centered intersectionality. My hope is that soon I won’t have to make these decisions in the fight for abortion rights; a fight where people of color are the backbone whether we’re featured prominently in films or not.

The film highlights the violent rhetoric anti-choice protesters use to demean those seeking abortions, but doesn’t dissect the deeply racist and abhorrent comments, often hurled at patients of color by older white protesters. These racist and sexist comments are what fuel much of the stigma that allows discriminatory laws, such as those banning so-called race- and sex-selective abortions, to flourish.

As I finished the documentary, I remembered a quote Chelsea, a white Christian woman who chose an abortion when her baby’s skull stopped developing above the eyes, said: “Knowing you’re not alone is the most important thing.”

In her case, her pastor supported her and her husband’s decision and prayed over them at the church. She seemed at peace with her decision to seek abortion because she had the support system she desired. Perhaps upon seeing the film, some will realize that all pregnancy decisions can be quite isolating and lonely, and we should show each other a bit more compassion when making them.

My hope is that the film reaches others who’ve had abortions and reminds them that they aren’t alone, whether they see themselves truly represented or not. That we who choose abortion are normal, loved, and supported. And that’s the main point of the film, isn’t it?

Abortion: Stories Women Tell is available in theaters in select cities and will be available on HBO in 2017.

Analysis Politics

Experts: Trump’s Proposal on Child Care Is Not a ‘Solution That Deals With the Problem’

Ally Boguhn

“A simple tax deduction is not going to deal with the larger affordability problem in child care for low- and moderate-income individuals," Hunter Blair, a tax and budget analyst at the Economic Policy Institute told Rewire.

In a recent speech, GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump suggested he now supports policies to made child care more affordable, a policy position more regularly associated with the Democratic Party. The costs of child care, which have almost doubled in the last 25 years, are a growing burden on low- and middle-income families, and quality options are often scarce.

“No one will gain more from these proposals than low- and middle-income Americans,” claimed Trump in a speech outlining his economic platform before the Detroit Economic Club on Monday. He continued, “My plan will also help reduce the cost of childcare by allowing parents to fully deduct the average cost of childcare spending from their taxes.” But economic experts question whether Trump’s proposed solution would truly help alleviate the financial burdens faced by low- and middleincome earners.

Details of most of Trump’s plan are still unclear, but seemingly rest on addressing child care costs by allowing families to make a tax deduction based on the “average cost” of care. He failed to clarify further how this might work, simply asserting that his proposal would “reduce cost in child care” and offer “much-needed relief to American families,” vowing to tell the public more with time. “I will unveil my plan on this in the coming weeks that I have been working on with my daughter Ivanka … and an incredible team of experts,” promised Trump.

Appreciate our work?

Vote now! And help Rewire earn a bigger grant from CREDO:

VOTE NOW

An adviser to the Trump campaign noted during an interview with the Associated Press Monday that the candidate had yet to nail down the details of his proposal, such as what the income caps would be, but said that the deductions would only amount to the average cost of child care in the state a taxpayer resided in:

Stephen Moore, a conservative economist advising Trump, said the candidate is still working out specifics and hasn’t yet settled on the details of the plan. But he said households reporting between $30,000 and $100,000, or perhaps $150,000 a year in income, would qualify for the deduction.

“I don’t think that Britney Spears needs a child care credit,” Moore said. “What we want to do is to help financially stressed middle-class families have some relief from child-care expenses.”

The deduction would also likely apply to expensive care like live-in nannies. But exemptions would be limited to the average cost of child care in a taxpayer’s state, so parents wouldn’t be able to claim the full cost of such a high-price child care option.

Experts immediately pointed out that while the details of Trump’s plan are sparse, his promise to make average child care costs fully tax deductible wouldn’t do much for the people who need access to affordable child care most.

Trump’s plan “would actually be pretty poorly targeted for middle-class and low-income families,” Hunter Blair, a tax and budget analyst at the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), told Rewire on Monday.

That’s because his tax breaks would presumably not benefit those who don’t make enough money to owe the federal government income taxes—about 44 percent of households, according to Blair. “They won’t get any benefit from this.”

As the Associated Press further explained, for those who don’t owe taxes to the government, “No matter how much they reduce their income for tax purposes by deducting expenses, they still owe nothing.”

Many people still may not benefit from such a deduction because they file standard instead of itemized deductions—meaning they accept a fixed amount instead of listing out each qualifying deduction. “Most [lower-income households] don’t choose to file a tax return with itemized deductions,” Helen Blank, director of child care and early learning at the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC), told Rewire Tuesday. That means the deduction proposed by Trump “favors higher income families because it’s related to your tax bracket, so the higher your tax bracket the more you benefit from [it],” added Blank.

A 2014 analysis conducted by the Congressional Research Service confirms this. According to its study, just 32 percent of tax filers itemized their deductions instead of claiming the standard deduction in 2011. While 94 to 98 percent of those with incomes above $200,000 chose to itemize their deductions, just 6 percent of tax filers with an adjusted gross income below $20,000 per year did so.

“Trump’s plan is also not really a solution that deals with the problem,” said Blair. “A simple tax deduction is not going to deal with the larger affordability problem in child care for low- and moderate-income individuals.”

Those costs are increasingly an issue for many in the United States. A report released last year by Child Care Aware® of America, which advocates for “high quality, affordable child care,” found that child care for an infant can cost up to an average $17,062 annually, while care for a 4-year-old can cost up to an average of $12,781.

“The cost of child care is especially difficult for families living at or below the federal poverty level,” the organization explained in a press release announcing those findings. “For these families, full-time, center-based care for an infant ranges from 24 percent of family income in Mississippi, to 85 percent of family income in Massachusetts. For single parents the costs can be overwhelming—in every state annual costs of center-based infant care averaged over 40 percent of the state median income for single mothers.”

“Child care now costs more than college in most states in our nation, and it is an actual true national emergency,” Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner, CEO and executive director of MomsRising, told Rewire in a Tuesday interview. “Donald Trump’s new proposed child care tax deduction plan falls far short of a solution because it’s great for the wealthy but it doesn’t fix the child care crisis for the majority of parents in America.”

Rowe-Finkbeiner, whose organization advocates for family economic security, said that in addition to the tax deduction being inaccessible to those who do not itemize their taxes and those with low incomes who may not pay federal income taxes, Trump’s proposal could also force those least able to afford it “to pay up-front child care costs beyond their family budget.”

“We have a crisis … and Donald Trump’s proposal doesn’t improve access, doesn’t improve quality, doesn’t lift child care workers, and only improves affordability for the wealthy,” she continued.

Trump’s campaign, however, further claimed in a statement to CNN Tuesday that “the plan also allows parents to exclude child care expenses from half of their payroll taxes—increasing their paycheck income each week.”

“The working poor do face payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare, so a payroll tax break could help them out,” reported CNN. “But experts say it would be hard to administer.”

Meanwhile, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton released her own child care agenda in May, promising to use the federal government to cap child care costs at 10 percent of a family’s income. 

A cap like this, Blank said, “would provide more help to low- and middle-income families.” She continued, “For example, if you had a family with two children earning $70,000, if you capped child care at 10 percent they could probably save … $10,000 a year.”

Clinton’s plan includes a promise to implement a program to address the low wages many who work in the child care industry face, which she calls the “Respect And Increased Salaries for Early Childhood Educators” program, or the RAISE Initiative. The program would raise pay and provide training for child-care workers.

Such policies could make a major difference to child-care workers—the overwhelming majority of which are women and workers of color—who often make poverty-level wages. A 2015 study by the EPI found that the median wage for these workers is just $10.31 an hour, and few receive employer benefits. Those poor conditions make it difficult to attract and retain workers, and improve the quality of care for children around the country. 

Addressing the low wages of workers in the field may be expensive, but according to Rowe-Finkbeiner, it is an investment worth making. “Real investments in child care bring for an average child an eight-to-one return on investment,” she explained. “And that’s because when we invest in quality access and affordability, but particularly a focus on quality … which means paying child-care workers fairly and giving child-care workers professional development opportunities …. When that happens, then we have lower later grade repetition, we have less future interactions with the criminal justice system, and we also have a lower need for government programs in the future for those children and families.

Affordable child care has also been a component of other aspects of Clinton’s campaign platform. The “Military Families Agenda,” for example, released by the Clinton campaign in June to support military personnel and their families, also included a child care component. The former secretary of state’s plan proposed offering these services “both on- and off-base, including options for drop-in services, part-time child care, and the provision of extended-hours care, especially at Child Development Centers, while streamlining the process for re-registering children following a permanent change of station (PCS).” 

“Service members should be able to focus on critical jobs without worrying about the availability and cost of childcare,” said Clinton’s proposal.

Though it may be tempting to laud the simple fact that both major party candidates have proposed a child care plan at all, to Rowe-Finkbeiner, having both nominees take up the cause is a “no-brainer.”

“Any candidate who wants to win needs to take up family economic security policies, including child care,” she said. “Democrats and Republicans alike know that there is a child care crisis in America. Having a baby right now costs over $200,000 to raise from zero to age 18, not including college …. Parents of all political persuasions are talking about this.”

Coming up with the right way to address those issues, however, may take some work.

“We need a bold plan because child care is so important, because it helps families work, and it helps them support their children,” the NWLC’s Blank said. “We don’t have a safety net for families to fall back on anymore. It’s really critical to help families earn the income their children need and child care gives children a strong start.” She pointed to the need for programs that offer families aid “on a regular basis, not at the end of the year, because families don’t have the extra cash to pay for child care during the year,” as well as updates to the current child care tax credits offered by the government.

“There is absolutely a solution, but the comprehensive package needs to look at making sure that children have high-quality child care and early education, and that there’s also access to that high-quality care,” Rowe-Finkbeiner told Rewire. 

“It’s a complicated problem, but it’s not out of our grasp to fix,” she said. “It’s going to take an investment in order to make sure that our littlest learners can thrive and that parents can go to work.”

credo_rewire_vote_3

Vote for Rewire and Help Us Earn Money

Rewire is in the running for a CREDO Mobile grant. More votes for Rewire means more CREDO grant money to support our work. Please take a few seconds to help us out!

VOTE!

Thank you for supporting our work!