Policy and Legal Protection for Breastfeeding and Incarcerated Women in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most incarcerated women in Canada are mothers. Because women are the fastest growing population in carceral facilities, protecting the rights of incarcerated women to breastfeed their children is increasingly important. There is considerable evidence that incarcerated women in Canada experience poor physical and mental health, isolation, and barriers to care. Incarcerated women and their children could benefit significantly from breastfeeding. This Insight in Policy explores policy and legal protection for breastfeeding in Canada as it relates to carceral facilities, considers key cases regarding breastfeeding rights among incarcerated women, and presents recommendations for policy development and advocacy. The Canadian Constitution and human rights legislation across Canada prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender and includes pregnancy and the possibility of becoming pregnant as a characteristic of gender. Some provinces note that breastfeeding is a characteristic of gender. Women's Wellness Within, a nonprofit organization providing volunteer perinatal support to criminalized women in Nova Scotia, conducted a scan of all provincial and territorial correctional services acts and the federal Corrections and Conditional Release Act: none mention breastfeeding. Protocols for breastfeeding during arrest and lockup by police were not available in any jurisdiction across Canada. International law, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Nelson Mandela Rules, and the Bangkok Rules, have application to the rights of incarcerated breastfeeding women. The Inglis v. British Columbia (Minister of Public Safety) (2013) and Hidalgo v. New Mexico Department of Corrections (2017) decisions are pivotal examples of successful litigation brought forward by incarcerated mothers to advance breastfeeding rights. Improved application and understanding of existent law could advance breastfeeding rights.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".