Pregnant Women in Custody Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Kamlager-Dove, Sydney [D-CA-37]
- Committees
- Budget Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 8, 2026
Bottom line
The bill seeks to improve the health, safety, and well-being of incarcerated pregnant and postpartum women and their infants by establishing federal standards for care, prohibiting harmful practices, and promoting family unity.
What it actually does
This bill mandates comprehensive health services and protections for pregnant and postpartum women in federal custody, including those held by the Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Office of Refugee Resettlement. It requires extensive data collection on maternal health in correctional settings, establishes programs for family unity and mother-infant bonding, prohibits the use of restrictive housing and restraints during pregnancy, labor, and postpartum recovery with narrow exceptions, and outlines specific care requirements for women with high-risk pregnancies.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill addresses critical human rights and public health concerns by ensuring humane treatment and appropriate medical care for a vulnerable population. They contend that the provisions will improve maternal and infant health outcomes, reduce trauma, facilitate family bonding, and align federal correctional practices with evidence-based medical standards and best practices already adopted in some states. Supporters emphasize that these reforms are essential for upholding dignity and promoting successful reentry for mothers.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that the bill imposes significant new mandates on federal agencies, potentially leading to substantial unfunded costs and administrative burdens that could strain existing budgets and resources. Concerns could also be raised regarding the practical challenges of implementing comprehensive new programs and extensive training requirements across diverse federal and contracted facilities, as well as potential security implications of strictly limiting restrictive housing and restraints in all but the most extreme circumstances.
The bill is moderately complex and detailed, requiring a dedicated reading of 15-20 minutes to grasp its full scope. Given the significant policy changes, this is a reasonable time investment for an informed reader.
Section 3
Data Collection on Incarcerated Pregnant Women
This section mandates the Director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics to collect and publish detailed data on incarcerated women who are pregnant, in labor, or in postpartum recovery across federal, state, tribal, and local correctional systems. It also requires the Directors of the Office of Homeland Security Statistics and the Office of Refugee Resettlement to publish similar statistics for women in their custody. The data includes demographics, provision of pregnancy care, use of restrictive housing, and infant custody disposition, ensuring no personally identifiable information is collected.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that robust data collection is crucial for understanding the scope of the problem, identifying disparities, and developing evidence-based policies to improve care for incarcerated pregnant women. Without this data, systemic issues remain hidden and difficult to address effectively.
Critics contend
Critics may contend that the extensive data collection requirements could impose significant administrative burdens on correctional facilities, requiring additional staff time and resources for reporting, potentially diverting resources from direct care services.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the need for comprehensive data to inform policy with the administrative burden placed on various correctional systems to collect and report this information.
Section 4
Family Unity and Mother-Infant Bonding Programs
This section mandates the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, Secretary of Homeland Security, and Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement to ensure the provision of nursery or residential services that allow mothers and infants to remain together after delivery. It also requires programs for regular mother-infant contact, lactation support (counseling, equipment), and a minimum bonding time of 60 minutes between a mother and newborn.
Section 5
Comprehensive Health Services for Pregnant and Postpartum Women
This section requires federal facilities to provide comprehensive health services for women related to pregnancy and childbirth. Key elements include access to contraception, pregnancy and STD testing, prenatal education and counseling, and specific accommodations such as appropriate housing, bedding, clothing, regular water and bathroom access, and a nutritious diet compliant with federal guidelines. It also mandates screenings for substance use disorders and mental health conditions, including postpartum depression, and requires services for unexpected childbirth and related complications.
Sections 6 and 7
Prohibition on Restrictive Housing and Restraints for Pregnant and Postpartum Women
These sections amend federal law (18 U.S.C. 4322 and the Immigration and Nationality Act) to prohibit the use of restrictive housing and physical restraints on incarcerated women from the confirmation of pregnancy until at least 12 weeks postpartum, or longer as determined by a healthcare professional. Limited exceptions exist for restrictive housing if there is an individualized determination of serious and immediate physical harm, but solitary confinement is explicitly prohibited in the third trimester. The sections also establish reporting requirements for any exceptions, notification of rights, violation reporting processes, and staff education.
Section 8
Treatment and Transfer for High-Risk Pregnancies
This section adds a new provision (18 U.S.C. 4052) requiring the Bureau of Prisons to ensure that incarcerated women with high-risk pregnancies receive appropriate specialized healthcare, including obstetrical and gynecological care. It mandates the transfer of such women, if they agree, to a Residential Reentry Center (RRC) with adequate healthcare during their pregnancy and postpartum recovery. The RRC should be geographically close to family members where practicable, and time spent there is credited towards their sentence.
The definition of 'in custody' is exceptionally broad, encompassing individuals under the supervision of Federal, State, Tribal, or local correctional facilities (including pretrial, juvenile, medical, or mental health facilities, and contract facilities), as well as those in the custody of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or the Office of Refugee Resettlement.
Section 2(2)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to define terms upfront, but its breadth is highly consequential.
Case for: Proponents argue that this broad definition ensures comprehensive protection for all pregnant individuals under federal authority or in federally-contracted facilities, preventing gaps in care based on the specific type of detention or jurisdiction.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against broad definitions in principle, but the extensive scope could contribute to concerns about the overall administrative burden and cost of the bill.
Estimated impact: Significantly expands the number of individuals and types of facilities covered by the bill's mandates, ensuring protections apply across various federal detention and correctional contexts.
Multiple sections of the bill include a provision allowing any person injured by a violation of that section to bring a civil action in a United States district court to obtain compensatory damages and injunctive or other equitable relief.
Sections 5(c), 6(i), 7(i), 8(c)
Why it matters:This is a common legislative drafting technique for establishing enforcement, but its repetition across multiple sections underscores its importance.
Case for: Proponents argue that these civil action provisions provide a critical avenue for accountability and redress for individuals whose rights under the Act are violated. They serve as a strong deterrent against non-compliance and ensure that the mandated protections are not merely aspirational.
Case against: Critics might argue that these provisions could lead to an increase in litigation against federal agencies, potentially diverting resources to legal defense rather than direct service provision, and creating an overly litigious environment for correctional staff.
Estimated impact: Establishes a direct legal pathway for individuals to enforce the bill's provisions, significantly enhancing accountability and the likelihood of compliance by federal agencies and facilities.
These subsections explicitly prohibit placing an incarcerated woman in solitary confinement if she is in her third trimester, even if an exception for restrictive housing due to serious and immediate physical harm is invoked.
Sections 6(b)(4) and 7(b)(4)
Why it matters:This is a specific carve-out within an exception, indicating a strong legislative intent to protect third-trimester pregnancies from the most severe forms of isolation.
Case for: Proponents highlight this as a crucial protection, arguing that solitary confinement during the vulnerable third trimester poses extreme risks to both maternal and fetal health, exacerbating stress and potentially leading to adverse outcomes. It reflects a recognition of the heightened vulnerability during this period.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against this particular nuance, as the broader debate focuses on the general prohibition of restrictive housing. However, those concerned about security might view any limitation on correctional tools as problematic.
Estimated impact: Provides a critical safeguard for pregnant individuals in their final trimester, preventing the most severe form of isolation even when other forms of restrictive housing might be temporarily permitted.