Several courts have required female child abusers to choose between either going to prison or accepting the surgical implantation of Norplant as a condition of probation. In this Article, Mr. Jebson argues that a Norplant probation condition is invalid because it is both unreasonable and the probationer cannot give her informed consent to the procedure. Mr. Jebson argues that requiring a woman to choose between using Norplant and going to prison may violate her fundamental right to procreate, her right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, and her right to freely exercise her religion. Further, the Author also contends that requiring the use of Norplant may violate the Equal Protection Clause because similarly situated male and female child abusers are treated differently. As an alternative to Norplant, Mr. Jebson recommends a rehabilitative procedure which both male and female child abusers could receive as a condition of probation without infringing on fundamental rights.
Scott J. Jebson, Conditioning a Woman's Probation on Her Using Norplant: New Weapon Against Child Abuse Backfires, 17 Campbell L. Rev. 301 (1995).