The fight for bodily autonomy is escalating for Black women giving birth, with recent cases highlighting a disturbing trend: hospitals and courts increasingly overriding their decisions regarding cesarean sections. A new investigation by ProPublica sheds light on instances where Black mothers were pressured into undergoing C-sections against their will, raising serious questions about racial bias within the healthcare system and the legal limits of medical intervention during childbirth.
For many Black women, the history of OB-GYN care is fraught with exploitation and trauma. The legacy of J. Marion Sims, often called the “Father of Gynecology,” who infamously experimented on enslaved Black women without anesthesia, continues to cast a long shadow. Today, disparities persist, with reports indicating that hospitals are more likely to recommend cesarean sections to Black mothers than to their white counterparts, even when medical circumstances are comparable. This pattern fuels concerns about systemic inequities and a lack of trust in the medical establishment.
The cases of Cherise Doyley and Brianna Bennett exemplify this growing crisis. In 2024, Cherise Doyley, a professional birthing doula, found herself in an extraordinary and unsettling situation at University of Florida Health in Jacksonville. After 12 hours of labor, hospital staff brought a tablet to her bedside and connected her via Zoom to a court hearing with a judge, lawyers, and medical personnel. The purpose? To obtain a court order forcing her to undergo a C-section, which she had explicitly refused.
Doyley, understanding the risks associated with uterine rupture – which she estimated to be less than 2 percent – stated she would only consent to surgery if a genuine emergency arose. She was the only Black person on the call, and felt intensely pressured. “I have 20 white people against me, and because I am informed and I am making an informed decision, they are trying to take my rights away from me by force,” she told ProPublica. Her request for a Black medical provider was dismissed by the judge, who stated, “I don’t locate that race really has much to do with this.” She was similarly denied assistance in seeing her newborn in the NICU after the forced surgery.
Cherise Doyley was in her 12th hour of contractions at the hospital when a tablet was brought to her bedside.On the screen was a Zoom call with a judge and several lawyers and doctors.She was in court, a nurse told her. The reason? For failing to agree to a C-section. pic.twitter.com/4IwgiDLP1C
— ProPublica (@propublica) March 21, 2026
Doyley’s experience is not isolated. ProPublica also reported on the case of Brianna Bennett, who sought a vaginal birth at Tallahassee Memorial Hospital in 2023 after having three previous C-sections. When her labor progressed slower than expected, a virtual court hearing was initiated from her hospital bed. A judge ordered the surgery when the baby’s heart rate increased during the proceedings. Notably, this wasn’t the first time Tallahassee Memorial Hospital had sought a court order to compel a patient into unwanted surgery; similar instances occurred in 1999 and 2009.
The Legal Landscape and Historical Context
Whereas C-sections can be necessary in emergency situations, ProPublica points out that when labor is simply progressing slowly, as in the cases of Doyley and Bennett, the need for surgery is less clear. Court-ordered C-sections have been a documented concern since at least 1987, with a New England Journal of Medicine survey finding that 81 percent of reviewed cases involved Black, Asian, or Hispanic women. This data was described as “an important and growing problem” with “far-reaching implications.”
Today, the legal framework governing pregnant women’s rights varies by state. According to Pregnancy Justice, 29 states have laws that can override advance directives, even when the fetus is not viable. This represents the case in Florida, where both Doyley and Bennett gave birth. Florida lawmakers are currently considering legislation that would recognize embryos and fetuses as legal persons in wrongful death lawsuits, a move advocates fear could lead to more forced medical interventions.
Bias and Disparities in Maternal Care
The potential for bias in medical judgment plays a significant role in these outcomes. Physicians’ decisions regarding when labor is “too slow” are subjective and can be influenced by implicit biases, contributing to the higher rates of C-sections among Black women, even when their medical profiles are similar to those of white patients. The consequences of these unwanted C-sections extend beyond statistical data.
Doyley has stated she will no longer work as a doula, finding the experience too traumatizing. Bennett shared that she cried daily following her surgery, expressing a sense of disappointment and lack of fulfillment despite the birth of her child. “I’m supposed to be thankful,” she told ProPublica. “And I’m not even happy.”
This situation underscores the urgent need for greater awareness of racial bias in maternal healthcare, increased patient advocacy, and a reevaluation of the legal and ethical boundaries surrounding forced medical interventions during childbirth. The debate over maternal autonomy and the rights of pregnant women is likely to intensify as lawmakers continue to grapple with these complex issues.
What comes next will depend on legislative action and continued advocacy for equitable maternal care. The outcome of the proposed bill in Florida regarding fetal personhood will be a key indicator of the direction of these policies. Share your thoughts and experiences in the comments below.
Disclaimer: This article provides information for general knowledge and informational purposes only, and does not constitute medical or legal advice. It is essential to consult with a qualified healthcare professional or legal expert for any health concerns or legal questions.
