What Is Mississippi's Strict New Teen-Pregnancy Bill Supposed to Accomplish?

A new rule requires seizing umbilical blood in various cases. But it raises serious privacy issues and seems to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
More
philbryant.banner.AP.jpg.jpg
Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant delivers his State of the State report before a joint session of the Legislature at the Capitol in Jackson in January 2013. (Associated Press)

Last month, Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant's Teen Pregnancy Prevention Blue Ribbon Task Force met at the Salvation Army headquarters in Jackson. A crowd of about 70 people gathered to hear about progress in reducing teen pregnancy during Bryant's first year in office.

The event's keynote speaker was Mississippi First Lady Deborah Bryant. Within the first minutes of her speech, talk turned to the passage of House Bill 151. Beaming, she declared it "an historic piece of legislation" and said it would go far in protecting the youngest teens from sexual abuse. The bill was in fact one of her husband's greatest accomplishments so farm, Bryant said. The crowd erupted in applause.

HB 151 does not create any new law per se. It amends existing Mississippi code, which already requires DNA sampling in cases of suspected sexual abuse in teens under the age of consent. What HB 151 does do is create a new list of so-called reasonable suspicions of abuse under which cord blood from underage mothers must be collected.

When the mother of a child is under the age of 16 at the time of conception and at least one of the following "conditions" is met, sexual abuse must be assumed and cord blood must be seized at the time of birth: the mother of the infant will not identify the father of the child; the mother lists the father as unknown; the infant's alleged father disputes paternity; the father is 21 or older; or if the mother identifies the father of the infant as deceased. DNA collection is done without permission from the mother or her parent or guardian. These new amendments go into effect July 1.

Critics say the newly codified standards are not only arbitrary but also raise serious constitutional issues with them. (The bill's authors did not respond to my request to discuss the new conditions.) Matt Steffey, a constitutional law professor at Mississippi College School of Law, told Reuters he believes the law opens the state to legal challenges:

The argument is that the DNA is abandoned or about to be abandoned as medical waste, and a person doesn't have constitutional privacy over trash .... But I think people are understandably nervous about the government collecting and permanently storing information from their DNA.

Jessica Mason Pieklo, co-author of Crow after Roe, a chronicle of state-by-state model bills limiting access to abortion and other reproductive health care, and former assistant director of the Health Law Clinic at Hamline University, goes a step further.

"Above and beyond the privacy issues for mother and infant, this bill expands police powers by lowering the bar for probable cause," she says. "I don't think I have seen anything like this bill in the United States. I don't know if this is a model bill or not but I wouldn't be surprised if we see more like it pop up in other states soon."

A less noticed clause in HB 151 requires collection of products of abortion if the teen is 14-years-old or younger. Pieklo worries Governor Bryant championing this bill as one of his greatest accomplishments thus far could result in renewed vigor by anti-choice activists to shut down the last abortion clinic Mississippi. She also says the bill may lead to a deluge of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests targeting the clinic demanding information on compliance with the law.

Campaigners have used FOIA requests to try to pressure providers out of business in the past. When Dr. Mila Means sought to open an abortion clinic in Wichita, Kansas -- replacing one run by Dr. George Tiller, who was assassinated in 2009 -- Operation Rescue and other groups inundated her clinic with requests for information and other alleged concerns over clinic safety. Campaigners managed to force Means out of business. A clinic has since opened with a new provider.

Medical professionals are concerned over HB 151, too. Dr. Pippa Abston, an Alabama pediatrician who blogs extensively about health care, says the concern for protecting adolescents from sexual abuse is justified, but the bill doesn't do it in a sensible way. Pediatricians are already trained in spotting sexual abuse, and they are already required by Mississippi law to make a report to authorities if there is suspicion of abuse.

"The specifics of 'reasonable suspicion' should not be encoded in law because [spotting abuse] is actually a science-based thing" in contrast to the arbitrary set of conditions outlined in the law, Abston says. "The healthcare providers are responsible for staying up to date on red flags for abuse. If the scientific literature says that a teen saying the father is dead is a significant predictor of rape, then the provider would need to take that into account in deciding whether to report."

But there's no clear evidence showing that the situations outlined in HB 151 are reliable indicators of abuse. HB 151 has followed a twisted path. It originated in the office state Attorney General Jim Hood, a Democrat. The legislation was then handed off for sponsorship to state Representative Andy Gipson, a Republican. Neither Hood nor Gipson responded to questions about how the conditions were decided.

Gipson is one of the most right-wing Republicans in the legislature. In 2012 he sponsored the so-called "personhood" bill, which would have granted fertilized eggs citizenship, and numerous anti-abortion bills similar to those in statehouses around the country, including fetal pain and heartbeat bills. HB 151 passed with bipartisan support -- but then, there is often very little daylight between Democrats and Republicans in Mississippi.

Jump to comments
Presented by

Andy Kopsa is a freelance journalist based in New York City. Her work has appeared in Ms., Religion Dispatches, and In These Times, among other publications.

Get Today's Top Stories in Your Inbox (preview)

Is Technology Making Us Better Storytellers?

How have stories changed in the age of social media? The minds behind House of Cards, This American Life, and The Moth discuss.


Join the Discussion

After you comment, click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register. blog comments powered by Disqus

Video

Is Technology Making Us Better Storytellers?

The minds behind House of Cards and The Moth weigh in.

Video

A Short Film That Skewers Hollywood

A studio executive concocts an animated blockbuster. Who cares about the story?

Video

In Online Dating, Everyone's a Little Bit Racist

The co-founder of OKCupid shares findings from his analysis of millions of users' data.

Video

What Is a Sandwich?

We're overthinking sandwiches, so you don't have to.

Video

Let's Talk About Not Smoking

Why does smoking maintain its allure? James Hamblin seeks the wisdom of a cool person.

Writers

Up
Down

More in Politics

Just In