At least 210 pregnant people faced criminal charges for “conduct associated” with pregnancy in the first year after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade—the highest number documented in a single year, according to a new report by Pregnancy Justice, a nonprofit dedicated to protecting pregnant people’s rights.

The report, released on Tuesday, covered prosecutions initiated from June 24, 2022 to June 23, 2023, but researchers plan to document all charges of pregnancy criminalization in the country in the years since the decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization in June 2022. The report defines pregnancy criminalization as occurring “when the state wields a criminal law to render acts associated with a pregnancy, pregnancy loss, birth, and/or associated healthcare the subject of criminal prosecution.” Pregnancy criminalization can include abortion criminalization, but is not limited to it. The majority of the pregnancy-related charges documented in the report, for instance, alleged substance use during pregnancy.

Read More: Here’s What Harris and Trump Said About Abortion in the 2024 Presidential Debate

In the report, researchers called pregnancy criminalization “nothing new.” Pregnancy Justice and other groups have recorded more than 1,800 cases of pregnancy-related charges from 1973 to 2022, according to the report. But researchers attribute the acceleration in pregnancy criminalization in the first year after the Dobbs decision to the rise of “fetal personhood” laws, which grant legal rights to an embryo or fetus. The report found that pregnancy-related prosecutions were highest in Alabama, followed by Oklahoma and South Carolina—states that have abortion bans or restrictions.

TIME discussed the report’s findings and what they mean with Pregnancy Justice President Lourdes Rivera.

This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.

Can you talk about the types of pregnancy-related charges your team uncovered? The majority of the charges were alleged substance use—why is that significant?

That’s been an ongoing pattern since the war on drugs in the 80s and 90s—that’s been the entry point to help create this idea that there are mothers who are harming their babies. The way people get caught up is they go to their doctors to get access to care. So just imagine: someone has a substance use disorder, they become pregnant, they go to the doctor to get help, and instead  they get reported to the family policing system and to law enforcement.

Read More: How Ronald Reagan Helped Abortion Take Over the Republican Agenda

Opioid disorder-related deaths have emerged as [a leading] contributor to maternal mortality, and you do not address that by driving people away from health care, which is what criminalization does. All the major medical associations and public-health associations oppose criminalizing pregnant people and criminalizing substance use during pregnancy because it drives people away from health care, which is exactly what they need.

What would you say is the most important takeaway from the report?

The overarching essential finding is the 210 cases that were uncovered, which is the highest number of criminal cases documented in any single year. The other key finding is that there were 22 cases of people being criminalized for pregnancy loss, a widely shared experience. Post-Dobbs, pregnancy loss is treated as a highly suspicious event.

We were expecting to find, given that it was post-Dobbs, that specific abortion criminalization laws would be used to prosecute people. And we actually, except for one, did not find any cases to date where a specific abortion law was being used to criminalize pregnant people. 

The report mentions that four cases included allegations concerning abortion, but that the individuals weren’t prosecuted on an abortion crime charge. Can you talk about the significance of that?

There’s been a lot of focus on the direct attacks on abortion, and we’ve seen backlash to that from the American public. What’s been happening is that pregnant women are being surveilled and investigated and prosecuted—not under specific abortion laws, because I think that would be politically unpopular, but rather, they’re using this mechanism and this architecture that has been built over time that’s been more under the radar.

What’s driving this is this really extreme ideology [of fetal personhood] that used to be on the fringe of the anti-abortion movement, but has now occupied the center and has been embedded in state criminal and civil law—like, for example, in the Alabama IVF decision, where a frozen embryo is now considered a child for purposes of wrongful death.

This infrastructure and architecture is available for prosecutors and law enforcement to use and they don’t have to rely on a specific abortion criminal law. 

We have to understand that pregnant people are being criminalized already. And if you’re only looking for the abortion law, then you’re missing a really crucial piece of the big picture.

The report found that the majority of people who were facing pregnancy-related charges in the year post-Dobbs were white and low-income. Oftentimes experts point out that threats to reproductive health disproportionately impact people of color.

Both things continue to be true. If we look at how fetal personhood got a foothold—how it went from the fringey margins and became more like a central strategy—it was in the 80s and 90s, when we were in the midst of the war on drugs, where Black and brown communities were being targeted. And this gave abortion opponents an opportunity to create this whole myth of fetuses as separate victims of Black and brown women’s behavior around the use of substances.

So that mechanism was built, and now as the drug crisis has shifted to opioids and methamphetamines—which is also a crisis that is disproportionately experienced by poor white communities and people in rural areas—you then see the same framework being applied over there.

We’re still seeing Black, brown, and Indigenous women being targeted. The other caveat is that our data relies on the court records, and court records are notoriously under-counting Black and brown and multi-ethnic people.

In 121 of the 210 cases, the information that led to charges was obtained or disclosed in a medical setting. Does that raise concerns for you that people may fear disclosing medical information to their doctors or seeking medical care at all?

Absolutely, this is a huge concern, and that it is really counterproductive. Anyone who goes to the doctor believes that if they share information with their doctor, it’s going to be to the benefit of their own health care. But if you’re a pregnant person, it’s like you have no confidentiality in your medical information. You get treated very differently because of your pregnancy status in health care settings, so this is a glaring gap in patient privacy protection laws.

Sometimes this reporting happens because of bias within those health care settings, and sometimes it is because [of] hospital policy, and sometimes it is because of state law. All of that is just really misdirected and contrary to the positions of major medical associations and public health associations.

What can the government do to address the issues that the report uncovered?

A few things. It depends on the administration, but the Department of Justice and the Office [for] Civil Rights in the Department of Health and Human Services can investigate whether or not this is race and/or sex discrimination.

We also just have to strengthen HIPAA laws to protect patient confidentiality in these circumstances. And we also need to urge states to adopt laws that require patient-informed consent before they can be drug tested at all, or to have their newborns drug tested. They shouldn’t be punished if they refuse to give that consent. There’s so much overtesting that happens without any actual clinical need, and there are false positives—I mean, all kinds of things happen, right? And that just starts this whole cascade of state involvement in your life that could result in a family losing their children or having the pregnant person or the postpartum person be criminalized.

A MAJOR bank has announced it’s offering free cash for switching accounts just in time to give your balance a boost for Christmas.

It’s also giving account holders a £50 interest-free overdraft buffer to ease burden at what can be an expensive time.

1

Nationwide Building Society has launched a new offer of £175 to switch to its FlexDirect, FlexPlus or FlexAccount current accounts.

In order to get the free money, you must switch through the Current Account Switch Service (CASS).

Banks often offer incentives like free cash to attract new customers.

Until recently several bank switch bonuses were up for grabs, but were pulled in the past few weeks.

But that could be set to change as Nationwide is the second bank to bring one back.

Rachel Springall, a finance expert at Moneyfacts Compare, said: “The £175 free-cash perk is a joint-market leading sum with First Direct, so it will be interesting to see if any other providers launch a switching incentive to compete for business in the weeks ahead.

“The FlexDirect (account) will pay up to £5 per month in cashback, but this is not diluted by any account management fee, which is a plus.”

The lender is also set to launch a £50 interest-free overdraft buffer in November, with the exact date to be confirmed closer to the time.

The buffer will apply to overdrafts on the lender’s three main current accounts, which are the FlexPlus, FlexDirect and the FlexAccount.

It’s worth noting that the FlexPlus account does charge a monthly fee in return for benefits such as insurance and breakdown cover. 

Springall says Nationwide’s £50 interest-free buffer could also be useful to some people as the Christmas shopping season draws nearer.

She says: “This safety net can make a difference for those who might overspend by a small amount.”

Springall suggested that, in general, current account holders should weigh up the benefits they use as well as the charges for using their account “to see if it’s working hard enough”.

The FlexDirect account gives the holder 5% credit interest on balances up to £1,500 for the first 12 months.

This account also offers an interest-free overdraft for the first 12 months.

Those who open a new FlexDirect account will still get the 5% credit interest rate, and will also receive 1% cashback for the first 12 months on debit card purchases, capped at £5 per month.

For new FlexDirect account openings, the previous interest-free overdraft offer will be withdrawn.

But if you are an existing customer who is benefiting from an interest-free overdraft offer then don’t worry, this will continue until the end of their 12-month period.

We’ve asked Nationwide if there’s a minimum amount you need to pay in to the accounts to qualify for the bonus and will update when we hear back.

While the £175 might look enticing, it is important to consider all aspects of a bank account when planning to change.

So for starters, it is important to look at what  fees and charges are associated with an account.

There is no account fee on the FlexDirect or FlexAccount current accounts. 

The FlexPlus account fee is currently £13, it will increase to £18 per month from December.

You should consider account opening fees, transaction fees, monthly maintenance fees, any overdraft changes and fees if you plan on spending abroad.

Account management, in terms of your preference for online or in a branch, and eligibility criteria, such as a good credit score, should also be looked at.

Finally incentives and mobile banking are two more important considerations when choosing whether to change accounts. 

How to switch bank accounts?

Switching bank accounts in the UK, in the vast majority of cases, can be done using the CASS to move your money and close your old account.

The first step to setting up a new account is done by contacting your chosen bank or building society to open an account. 

This can be done by applying online, in branch, by phone, or via the lender’s app.

Step two involves your chosen lender checking your eligibility for an account, and to switch using the CASS.

Following this, you need to select the date you want your old account to close and your new account to open.

You will be required to provide information about yourself and your finances, and present a form of photo ID.

The bank will check your credit report to verify your identity and assess the risk of lending money to you.

Lastly, it is just a case of counting down the days until the switch is complete, with the minimum being seven working days.

What other banks are offering bonus switches?

Right now, options are quite limited with only one other major lender offering incentives to switch. 

But don’t fret, lenders often introduce these incentives from time to time, so simply stay on the lookout if you have a particular bank or building society you want to switch to.

FirstDirect are currently offering £175 to customers who choose to make the switch.

To be eligible for the bonus you cannot have had any account with First Direct in the past, and you can’t have opened a current account with HSBC since January 2018.

If this is you, then all you need to do is open the account in app, and switch in an account from a different bank including two direct debits or standing orders within 45 days.

You will also need to pay in £1,000 and make five or more debit card payments within 45 days.

The £175 is paid by the 20th of the following month after you meet the switch bonus criteria.

What is an overdraft and how does it work?

The ins and outs of an overdraft are simple enough to understand, for starters there are two types.

These are arranged and unarranged. An arranged overdraft is a pre-arranged limit that you agree with your bank, while an unarranged overdraft occurs when you go overdrawn without an arranged overdraft.

You will usually be charged interest for using an overdraft, but some providers offer an interest-free amount. This is common with student accounts.

If you manage an arranged overdraft well it is unlikely to have any impact on your credit score.

But, if you do not pay it off regularly, have payments declined, or use the unarranged overdraft, it is likely to have a negative impact.

You should also know that if you do not pay your overdraft off in time, your bank may turn your account over to a collection agency.

Online entertainment publisher Digitalbox is launching a series of highly-targeted sites aiming to deliver the “super engagement which is increasingly favoured by the platforms”.

The new “verticals strategy” has begun with the launch of Emmerdale Insider, which includes existing staff moved over from Entertainment Daily as well as others.

Two more new sites are planned to go live before the end of 2024.

Referring to Google’s E-A-T (Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness) criteria, Digitalbox chief executive James Carter said sites dedicated to specific football clubs were an example of the sort of content favoured nowadays by the search engine.

He said there is a “move away from sort of generalists towards specialists” and that it appeared that the “E-A-T algorithm would raise a very distinct, focused offering around one club ahead of the generalist view of football from writers that cover every club”.