Justice for Incarcerated Moms Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Pressley, Ayanna [D-MA-7]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 21, 2026
Bottom line
This bill seeks to end the practice of shackling pregnant individuals and improve comprehensive maternal health care and support for incarcerated pregnant and postpartum individuals in federal, state, and local correctional facilities.
What it actually does
H.R. 9817, the "Justice for Incarcerated Moms Act," aims to improve maternal health outcomes for pregnant and postpartum incarcerated individuals. It does this by penalizing states that continue to shackle pregnant individuals in prison by reducing their federal justice grants, establishing model maternal health programs in federal Bureau of Prisons facilities, and creating a grant program for states to implement similar programs in state and local prisons and jails. The bill also mandates a GAO report on maternal and infant health outcomes among incarcerated individuals.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the bill addresses a critical human rights issue by ending the inhumane and medically dangerous practice of shackling pregnant individuals. They contend that it promotes better health outcomes for both mothers and infants, reduces health disparities, and offers essential support services, including reentry assistance, which can break cycles of incarceration and improve societal well-being.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that the bill imposes unfunded mandates on states by requiring changes to restraint policies or risking a 25% reduction in Byrne grants, potentially straining state and local correctional budgets. Some may also raise concerns about security risks associated with reduced restraints or the administrative burden of implementing and reporting on new maternal health programs.
The bill is relatively short and clearly structured, allowing an informed reader to understand its core provisions and implications within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2(a)
Ending the Shackling of Pregnant Individuals
This section mandates that states receiving federal Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Grants must have laws restricting the use of restraints on pregnant individuals in prison that are substantially similar to federal standards (18 U.S.C. 4322). States that fail to comply within six months of the Act's enactment will see their Byrne grant allocation decreased by 25 percent annually.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is essential to enforce humane treatment standards for pregnant incarcerated individuals, aligning state practices with established federal guidelines and medical best practices. The financial incentive encourages states to adopt necessary reforms.
Critics contend
Some may argue that this constitutes an unfunded mandate or federal overreach into state correctional policies, potentially forcing states to choose between federal funding and their own security protocols, or imposing financial burdens on states already struggling with correctional budgets.
Tradeoffs
Balances state autonomy in correctional management against federal standards for humane treatment and maternal health, using financial incentives to drive compliance.
Section 2(b)
Reallocation of Withheld Funds
This subsection specifies that any funds withheld from non-compliant states under Section 2(a) will be reallocated to states that have complied with the requirements. This ensures the funds remain within the Byrne Grant Program and reward states that adopt the anti-shackling policies.
Section 3(a)-(e)
Model Programs for Incarcerated Individuals in Prenatal and Postpartum Periods in BOP Facilities
This section directs the Attorney General, through the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), to establish model programs in at least six BOP facilities within one year. These programs aim to optimize maternal health outcomes for pregnant and postpartum incarcerated individuals, offering services like access to perinatal health workers, healthy foods, nutrition counseling, specialized training for correctional officers and medical personnel, mental and behavioral health treatment, education, bonding opportunities with newborns, and reentry assistance. Priority is given to facilities with higher numbers of pregnant/postpartum individuals, especially those from demographic groups with elevated maternal health disparities, and those demonstrating commitment to such programs.
Section 3(f)-(i)
Implementation, Reporting, Oversight, and Authorization for BOP Model Programs
This part outlines the responsibilities of selected BOP facilities for implementing the model programs and reporting results to the Director, including quantitative indicators (e.g., maternal mortality rates, preterm births, mental health diagnoses, stratified by demographics) and qualitative evaluations from participants. The Director must report these findings to Congress. It also mandates an independent oversight contract and authorizes $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2027 through 2031 to carry out these programs.
Section 4(a)-(e)
Grant Program for State and Local Prisons and Jails
This section establishes a grant program, administered by the Attorney General through the Bureau of Justice Assistance, to help states establish or expand similar maternal health programs in state and local prisons and jails. The types of programs are identical to those outlined for BOP facilities (Section 3(e)). Priority for grants is given to states with higher numbers of pregnant/postpartum individuals, especially those from demographic groups with elevated maternal health disparities, and those demonstrating commitment to developing exemplary programs. Grants are for a 5-year period.
Section 4(f)-(i)
Implementation, Reporting, Oversight, and Authorization for State/Local Grant Programs
Similar to the BOP programs, this part outlines reporting requirements for grant recipients, including quantitative and qualitative data. The Attorney General must report results to Congress. It also mandates independent oversight and authorizes $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2027 through 2031 for this grant program.
Section 5(a)-(b)
GAO Report on Maternal and Infant Health Outcomes
This section requires the Comptroller General of the United States (GAO) to submit a report to Congress within two years. The report must detail adverse maternal and infant health outcomes among incarcerated individuals, with a particular focus on racial and ethnic disparities. It requires data on pregnancy-related deaths, severe maternal morbidity, preterm births, and low-birthweight births, and an assessment of barriers to obtaining this data. The report also needs to examine the implications of Medicaid ineligibility during incarceration, the effects of detention policies for illicit drug use during pregnancy, unique causes of adverse outcomes for incarcerated individuals (especially minority groups), and recommendations to reduce disparities.
References "section 4322 of title 18, United States Code" for the standard of restricting restraints on pregnant individuals.
Section 2(a)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to avoid redundancy and ensure consistency with existing federal statutes.
Case for: Streamlines the bill by not repeating existing law, ensuring that states are held to an already established federal standard.
Case against: Requires external research to fully understand the specific restrictions being enforced, potentially making the bill less immediately transparent to a casual reader.
Estimated impact: Directly impacts the physical treatment of pregnant incarcerated individuals by setting a clear, enforceable federal standard for states.
Allows BOP model programs and state grant programs to establish or expand "pretrial diversion programs as an alternative to incarceration for pregnant and postpartum individuals." These programs may include various services like education, counseling, and treatment for mental/behavioral health conditions.
Section 3(e)(10) and 4(c)(10)
Why it matters:It's presented as an option within a list of program components, rather than a standalone directive, which might reflect a desire to offer flexibility to facilities/states or to avoid making it a central, potentially controversial, mandate.
Case for: Proponents argue that diverting pregnant and postpartum individuals from incarceration is a highly effective way to improve maternal and infant health outcomes, reduce trauma, and address underlying issues, often at a lower cost than incarceration.
Case against: Some may argue that diversion programs could pose public safety risks depending on the nature of the offenses, or that they might be difficult to implement consistently across diverse jurisdictions.
Estimated impact: Could significantly reduce the number of pregnant and postpartum individuals in correctional facilities, leading to better health outcomes and reduced costs.