Upon leaving prison, some people choose to enrich their lives through parenthood. But those reentering society who are lucky enough to bring new children into the world are almost exclusively men. For women, particularly those facing long-term sentences, the odds of bearing children after prison are much lower. 

I was a 25-year-old mother of one child when I was sentenced to 20 to 45 years in prison. It was always a dream of mine to have a larger family, and to give my daughter a sibling. But I may never be able to fulfill that dream. 

I will be at least 45 years old by the time I’m released. The average age for menopause in the United States is 52, but the transition can start years earlier. By the time I get out, the probability of my having another biological child naturally is unlikely, according to the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Adopting a child is not an option, as Pennsylvania law precludes felons from adopting and fostering children in most cases. 

Detaining women during their child-bearing years results in a permanent loss of fertility, and a violation of our reproductive rights. This is a sexist form of punishment, as men are not subjected to the same limitations. Because the option to preserve fertility — through freezing eggs, for example — is essentially non-existent in U.S. prisons, we as a society have decided that criminal histories should disqualify many women from being mothers. 

Residents at my facility can be prescribed birth control pills and have hysterectomies performed. But when I requested a conversation with the facility OB-GYN about fertility preservation, I was denied. “We do not offer fertility treatments at this facility,” read the note I received. 

The Supreme Court’s 1942 decision in Skinner v. Oklahoma affirmed the right of procreation for prisoners. In delivering the opinion of the court, Justice William O. Douglas said, “We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. … When the law lays an unequal hand on those who have committed intrinsically the same quality of offense and sterilizes one and not the other, it has made as invidious a discrimination as if it had selected a particular race or nationality for oppressive treatment.”

Unfortunately, the ruling was concerned only with compulsory sterilization, not the issue of de facto sterilization, or women losing their biological ability to procreate while being held in custody. 

Other countries have made access to fertility treatments available to incarcerated men and women. The United Kingdom allows incarcerated people to apply for access to fertility preservation treatments. However, even there, the majority of approved candidates are men, according to a panel discussion on prison and assisted reproduction by the International IVF Initiative. Other countries with public health care systems, such as Spain and Australia, have granted and paid for fertility treatments for incarcerated people.

Prisons must maintain their security role in society and provide punishment for those who break the law. But should de facto sterilization be part of that punishment?

Incarcerated women should be able to benefit from science available to the outside community. Medicine continues to make strides in fertility preservation, allowing women to prolong their child-bearing years. The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections should offer some type of fertility treatment so that a woman’s right to create or grow a family can remain intact while she is behind bars.