Kate Sheppard

Reporter

Kate Sheppard is a staff reporter in Mother Jones' Washington bureau. She was previously the political reporter for Grist and a writing fellow at The American Prospect. She can be reached by email at ksheppard (at) motherjones (dot) com.

Full Bio | Get my RSS | Follow @kate_sheppard

Her work has also been featured in the New York Times' Room for Debate blog, the Guardian's Comment Is Free, Foreign Policy, High Country News, The Center for Public Integrity, the Washington Independent, Washington Spectator, Who Runs Gov, In These Times, and Bitch. She was raised on a vegetable farm in southern New Jersey (yes, they do exist), but has adapted well to life in the nation's capital. She misses trees and having a congressional representative with voting power, but thinks DC is pretty great anyway.

Pregnant? That Might Get You Arrested

—By Kate Sheppard

| Wed Jan. 16, 2013 7:43 AM PST

Abortion continues to be a hot-button issue in the US, as dozens of states have passed measures to limit women's access to the procedure. But even women who want to be pregnant are not free of legal restraints on their bodies, as a new paper in the Journal of Health, Politics, Policy and Law demonstrates. In many instances, women have been arrested, institutionalized, or subjected to unwanted medical interventions due to their pregnancies.

The paper looks at 413 criminal and civil cases from 1973 to 2005 in which women were subject to legal action related to their unborn children. In all the cases, the women were deprived of their own civil liberties by legal authorities claiming to seek protection of the fetus. Many dealt with charges related to drug or alcohol use during pregnancy, refusing to follow doctor's orders, or for miscarriages that were blamed on their actions (even if there was little to no evidence to prove that those actions led to the miscarriage).

In a piece at RH Reality Check, the paper's authors detail some of the examples they found in their search of legal and public records, as well as media accounts. Here are just a few of them they include:

A Louisiana woman was charged with murder and spent approximately a year in jail before her counsel was able to show that what was deemed a murder of a fetus or newborn was actually a miscarriage that resulted from medication given to her by a health care provider.

In Texas, a pregnant woman who sometimes smoked marijuana to ease nausea and boost her appetite gave birth to healthy twins. She was arrested for delivery of a controlled substance to a minor.

A doctor in Wisconsin had concerns about a woman's plans to have her birth attended by a midwife. As a result, a civil court order of protective custody for the woman's fetus was obtained. The order authorized the sheriff’s department to take the woman into custody, transport her to a hospital, and subject her to involuntary testing and medical treatment.

Fifty-two percent of the women in the cases they found were African American. Seventy-one percent were likely low income, as they were represented by indigent defense in the legal case. Sixty-nine percent were under the age of 30, and 56 percent were in the South. And, lest you think these are mostly old cases, they found more than 25 in 2005, the last year included in the paper. The authors also said that, while not included in this research, they are aware of at least 250 cases since 2005.

"It's a system of law in which pregnant women are treated as an underclass."

The authors argue that the issues at play here are greater than reproductive choice, but about women's rights.

"What we saw was not just a limitation on abortion or reproductive rights, or even the deprivation of civil liberties, but the denial of pregnant woman of virtually every right," said Lynn M. Paltrow, the executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women and the lead author of the study in a call with reporters on Tuesday. "It's a system of law in which pregnant women are treated as an underclass."

They also note that many women were charged under state-level laws dealing with fetal homicide—or "feticide"—laws that were, in theory, designed to protect pregnant women from acts of violence and are now in place in 38 states. But rather than dealing with criminal acts against the women, they've been used to prosecute the women themselves.

Paltrow and coauthor Jeanne Flavin, a sociology professor at Fordham University, also related their findings to the so-called "personhood" movement, an extreme anti-abortion effort that has sought to grant fertilized eggs the same rights as adult humans. While no states have passed that type of law, many are using other legal measures that, in practice, grant fetuses precedent over the rights of the women carrying them. "The question isn't 'Are you for or against abortion?'" said Paltrow. "It's, 'Do you believe that upon becoming pregnant, women become an underclass?'"

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Atomic Scientists: Humans Still Pretty Close to Self-Annihilation. Drink!

—By Kate Sheppard

| Tue Jan. 15, 2013 1:51 PM PST

Last year, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists moved the minute hand on its "Doomsday Clock" one minute closer to midnight. This year, the group of scientists decided to keep the symbolic timepiece at 11:55, signaling that its members don't believe things are getting any better when it comes to global annihilation.

The clock, which has been around since 1947, was created to symbolize the threat of nuclear power, but now also represents other man-made threats to humanity.

Back in 2010, the group was optimistic, as it elected to set the clock back by one minute. But this year the group says that the world has been consumed by economic threats, to the detriment of other pressing issues like nuclear proliferation and climate change. Members of the BAS wrote a letter to President Barack Obama citing those concerns, and asking him to "partner with other world leaders to forge the comprehensive global response that the climate threat demands, based on equity and cooperation across countries." They wrote:

2012 was the hottest year on record in the contiguous United States, marked by devastating drought and brutal storms. These extreme events are exactly what climate models predict for an atmosphere laden with greenhouse gases. 2012 was a year of unrealized opportunity to reduce nuclear stockpiles, to lower the immediacy of destruction from weapons on alert, and to control the spread of fissile materials and keep nuclear terrorism at bay. 2012 was a year in which—one year after the partial meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station—the Japanese nation continued to be at the earliest stages of what will be a costly and long recovery.

The group also noted that Obama's next term provides another opportunity to address these issues:

"We have as much hope for Obama's second term in office as we did in 2010, when we moved back the hand of the Clock after his first year in office," said Robert Socolow, chair of the Science and Security Board at BAS. "This is the year for U.S. leadership in slowing climate change and setting a path toward a world without nuclear weapons."

5 Anti-Abortion States to Watch in 2013

Thought 2012 was bad for reproductive rights? Just wait until you see what some states have planned for this year.

—By Kate Sheppard

| Tue Jan. 8, 2013 4:01 AM PST

The 2012 presidential campaign and the fights for the House and Senate were filled with talk of "legitimate rape," reproductive rights, and a "war on women." But now that the campaigns are over, the legislating is just beginning—and in 2013, women in states across the country will face even more new restrictions on abortion.

2011 was a huge year for anti-abortion legislation, with 92 new restrictions passing in states around the country. Although anti-choice legislatures weren't as prolific in 2012, they still managed to pass 43 new laws that make it harder for women to get an abortion, according to a tally by the Guttmacher Institute, a leading abortion rights group. A number of regulations from state agencies have also started going into effect, further reducing access in some states.

"They are relentless in their efforts to ultimately overturn Roe v. Wade," NARAL Pro-Choice America President Nancy Keenan told Mother Jones, noting that 21 states have legislatures and governors that oppose abortion rights. "It's tough to stop anything when the entire government is controlled by anti-choice politicians. In those 21 states, it's going to be heartbreaking to watch what they're going to advance the next legislative cycle."

[Read the full article]

Will the New Ethanol Blend Tank My Ride?

The EPA has approved a new gas mix with more ethanol, but it might damage your car.

—By Kate Sheppard

| Mon Dec. 24, 2012 4:11 AM PST

After years of debate—and I'm not exaggerating on that—my husband and I finally bought a car. We settled on a Prius C, a pint-sized younger sibling of the iconic originals that gets 53 miles per gallon.

I drove the car for weeks before I finally had to stop at a gas station. When I pulled open the door to my tank, I found a stark warning sign on the cap telling me I was NOT to put any gasoline blend higher than E10 in my tank.

E10 means gasoline with a 10 percent mix of ethanol, generally derived from corn, and it used to be the highest blend of ethanol allowed in the United States. Ten states require all gas to include 10 percent ethanol. About 80 percent of the gasoline consumed in the US is blended with ethanol, according to the industry's trade group, the Renewable Fuels Association. Most of us—myself included—don't pay a lot attention to what gas we're pumping into our cars, outside of "diesel" or "unleaded," and might not have realized that we are already pumping corn into our tanks.

But we'll have to start paying attention soon, as the Environmental Protection Agency has approved a new policy that will allow states to raise the blend to up to 15 percent ethanol (also known as E15). The EPA says the fuel is approved for use for cars and light trucks from the model year 2001 and later.

Individual states will have to determine whether they want to raise their blend, but the EPA's decision will allow them to do so if they choose. Midwestern, corn-producing states are expected to be the first to increase their blends. Right now, there are only 10 stations offering E15 as an option—all of them in Kansas, Iowa, and Nebraska.

I hadn't really thought about E15 much before seeing the gas cap on my car. And as I went to pump gas in my car, I realized I had no idea what the current rule was in that state (which happened to be Maryland)—there were no signs on the pump. So what am I supposed to do when states start rolling out E15, with my car clearly telling me not to fill 'er up with that stuff? What will it actually do to my car?

I'm not the only one who is concerned. A few weeks ago, AAA issued a statement saying that the EPA's new policy creates the "strong likelihood of consumer confusion and the potential for voided warranties and vehicle damage." The worry is that people will put E15 in their cars without realizing it. AAA surveyed vehicle manufacturers, and found that only about 12 million of the 240 million vehicles on the roads today are built to use E15 gasoline.

Automakers are also warning against using E15. BMW, Chrysler, Nissan, Toyota, and Volkswagen have all said that their warranties do not cover problems caused by using E15, and another eight companies have said using it may void warranty coverage, if they determine that's what caused the problem.

EPA

The EPA will require that gas pumps with E15 bear a warning sign noting the blend and that it is not recommended for cars older than the 2001 model year. But what happens if I accidentally use it?

Brian Lyons, Toyota's safety and quality communications manager, told me that the problem is that "nobody really knows what negative effects [E15 is] going to have on the vehicle." While the company is now working on cars that can run on the new blend, the existing models weren't built for that.

It's not that filling up with E15 one time will screw up my engine, Lyons said. Rather, the concern is that repeated, long-term exposure could cause the higher-alcohol-content fuel to degrade engine parts like valves and cylinder heads—which could potentially cost thousands of dollars to replace. Short-term, I may notice that my car isn't performing as well. My "check engine" light might come on. And it could keep coming on, repeatedly, which is probably more annoying than dangerous.

"We think that there needs to be a lot more study conducted to make sure there are no longer term effects on the vehicle," Lyons said. "So far everything we've seen says there will be."

Okay, so Toyota doesn't like the new rule. Gas station owners don't like it very much either, because they'd likely have to upgrade their equipment to use it. Nor are environmental groups big fans of the EPA's decision. For one, they note that using corn ethanol creates many of its own environmental problems. The Environmental Working Group also argues that increasing the use of ethanol can drive up food prices, and isn't the best means of reducing our reliance on foreign fuels.

The only group that really seems to like the new rule is the ethanol lobby.

"We've force fed a fuel into every American's car that benefits a few thousand corn farmers and ethanol refiners at the expense of virtually every other American," EWG's vice president of governmental affairs, Scott Faber, told Mother Jones.

Everyone's best advice for car owners? Pay attention at the pump.

Military Women Get (Slightly) More Access to Abortion

—By Kate Sheppard

| Wed Dec. 19, 2012 2:20 PM PST

Lawmakers have produced a conference report reconciling the House and Senate versions of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2013. The report indicates that the final bill will retain a measure that will allow women in the military to use their Defense Department health insurance to pay for abortions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest.

The measure, which was introduced by New Hampshire Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D), allows military women to use their government-issued health care to pay for an abortion if they are raped, just like any other woman who works for the federal goverment is already allowed to do. For years, military women have had tight restrictions on their ability to use their health benefits for abortions, and were only allowed to do so if their lives were in danger. That this provision made it into the final bill is a big deal, as House Republicans were expected to block it.

Reproductive rights groups praised the change. "For too long, servicewomen and military dependents have been denied an important aspect of health care coverage," said Marcia Greenberger, co-president of the National Women's Law Center. "It was unconscionable that women who survived rape or incest were forced to pay out-of-pocket for an abortion."