Local legislators propose bills against foreign law and shackling pregnant inmates in labor

REP. NANCY MACE FILES BILL TO PROHIBIT RESTRAINING INMATES WHILE GIVING BIRTH

Representative Nancy Mace of Daniel Island recently filed a bill that, if successful, will put restrictions on the ways pregnant South Carolina inmates can be restrained. Female inmates not in labor will have restraints placed on their wrists from the front and “in a way that the pregnant inmate may be able to protect herself and the fetus in the event of a fall,” the bill said.

Bill 3967 is most notable for its requirement that an inmate in labor will not be placed in any restraints, unless “there are reasonable grounds to believe the inmate presents an immediate, serious threat” to herself or others, or “she presents an immediate, credible risk of escape that cannot be reasonably contained through other methods.”

If restraints are applied at any time during labor or delivery of the child, officers are required to alert the facility director immediately, with their reason why.

An additional bill provision will allow for “initial bonding” between an inmate and her child. This is defined as skin-to-skin contact and nursing.

“As proposed this bill offers compassion for the infant both during pregnancy and during labor and delivery,” Mace said in a press release on the subject.

“I’m in favor of the bill,” said Berkeley County Sheriff’s Office Detention Center Director Randy Demory. “I don’t believe it will introduce any risk that couldn’t be managed easily in other ways.”

“Sheriff Lewis and I believe inmates should be treated with dignity and respect in all areas, and that certainly applies to expecting female inmates,” he added.

“People in the chamber, both Republicans and Democrats are very supportive of the bipartisan measure,” said Rep. Mace.

Approximately two dozen states have banned the use of restraints on pregnant inmates. Mace’s recent legislation proposal was inspired by the First Step Act, a bill targeting prison reform, signed into law late last year. The extensive legislation attempts to curb America’s high inmate recidivism rates. One provision makes it illegal to shackle pregnant inmates in federal prisons.

On the decision to sponsor the bill, Mace added that she wanted to “clarify what the law allows and doesn’t allow, because I do think it’s an important issue.”

SEN. LARRY GROOMS FILES BILL TO PROTECT FROM FOREIGN LAW

State Senator Larry Grooms, whose district includes Daniel Island, has proposed a bill that will “prevent a court or other enforcement authority from enforcing foreign law in this state from a forum outside of the United States.”

Grooms clarified to The Daniel Island News that this “would make it such that a South Carolina court could not use international laws or ecclesiastical laws in determining whether a South Carolina statute or law is constitutional.”

The measure has been called an “anti-sharia” law, in reference to the religious laws (sharia law) laid out in Muslim tradition. In fact, the bill is in response to an infamous 2009 court case in New Jersey, in which Superior Court Judge Joseph Charles denied a woman a restraining order from her husband, after he beat and sexually assaulted her. Both were Muslim.

According to Politifact, Charles asked the couple’s imam how Islam affects sexual behavior. “The imam testified that a wife must comply with her husband’s sexual demands, but a husband was forbidden to approach his wife ‘like any animal’,” said Politifact’s account of the events.

A year after Charles denied the restraining order on this basis, the New Jersey appeals court ruled that his decision contradicted U.S. and Supreme Court precedent between criminal law and procedure.

Grooms himself was hesitant, at first, to label his law as “anti-sharia.”

“I’m not anti-sharia,” he stated. “I’m just anti sharia being held at a position higher than South Carolina law.”

Grooms has proposed this legislation six times over the past six years, with it going out on the Senate floor once. He said that he has not changed the bill or its wording in that time.