Nonstopdrivel
13 years ago

Outcry in America as pregnant women who lose babies face murder charges
 
Women's rights campaigners see the creeping criminalisation of pregnant women as a new front in the culture wars over abortion

Ed Pilkington in New York
guardian.co.uk, Friday 24 June 2011 18.30 BST

UserPostedImage
Across the US, more and more prosecutions are being brought against women who lose their babies. Photograph: Alamy

Rennie Gibbs is accused of murder, but the crime she is alleged to have committed does not sound like an ordinary killing. Yet she faces life in prison in Mississippi over the death of her unborn child.

Gibbs became pregnant aged 15, but lost the baby in December 2006 in a stillbirth when she was 36 weeks into the pregnancy. When prosecutors discovered that she had a cocaine habit – though there is no evidence that drug abuse had anything to do with the baby's death – they charged her with the "depraved-heart murder" of her child, which carries a mandatory life sentence.

Gibbs is the first woman in Mississippi to be charged with murder relating to the loss of her unborn baby. But her case is by no means isolated. Across the US more and more prosecutions are being brought that seek to turn pregnant women into criminals.

"Women are being stripped of their constitutional personhood and subjected to truly cruel laws," said Lynn Paltrow of the campaign National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW). "It's turning pregnant women into a different class of person and removing them of their rights."

Bei Bei Shuai, 34, has spent the past three months in a prison cell in Indianapolis charged with murdering her baby. On 23 December she tried to commit suicide by taking rat poison after her boyfriend abandoned her.

Shuai was rushed to hospital and survived, but she was 33 weeks pregnant and her baby, to whom she gave birth a week after the suicide attempt and whom she called Angel, died after four days. In March Shuai was charged with murder and attempted foeticide and she has been in custody since without the offer of bail.

In Alabama at least 40 cases have been brought under the state's "chemical endangerment" law. Introduced in 2006, the statute was designed to protect children whose parents were cooking methamphetamine in the home and thus putting their children at risk from inhaling the fumes.

Amanda Kimbrough is one of the women who have been ensnared as a result of the law being applied in a wholly different way. During her pregnancy her foetus was diagnosed with possible Down's syndrome and doctors suggested she consider a termination, which Kimbrough declined as she is not in favour of abortion.

The baby was delivered by caesarean section prematurely in April 2008 and died 19 minutes after birth.

Six months later Kimbrough was arrested at home and charged with "chemical endangerment" of her unborn child on the grounds that she had taken drugs during the pregnancy – a claim she has denied.

"That shocked me, it really did," Kimbrough said. "I had lost a child, that was enough."

She now awaits an appeal ruling from the higher courts in Alabama, which if she loses will see her begin a 10-year sentence behind bars. "I'm just living one day at a time, looking after my three other kids," she said. "They say I'm a criminal, how do I answer that? I'm a good mother."

Women's rights campaigners see the creeping criminalisation of pregnant women as a new front in the culture wars over abortion, in which conservative prosecutors are chipping away at hard-won freedoms by stretching protection laws to include foetuses, in some cases from the day of conception. In Gibbs' case defence lawyers have argued before Mississippi's highest court that her prosecution makes no sense. Under Mississippi law it is a crime for any person except the mother to try to cause an abortion.

"If it's not a crime for a mother to intentionally end her pregnancy, how can it be a crime for her to do it unintentionally, whether by taking drugs or smoking or whatever it is," Robert McDuff, a civil rights lawyer asked the state supreme court.

McDuff told the Guardian that he hoped the Gibbs prosecution was an isolated example. "I hope it's not a trend that's going to catch on. To charge a woman with murder because of something she did during pregnancy is really unprecedented and quite extreme."

He pointed out that anti-abortion groups were trying to amend the Mississippi constitution by setting up a state referendum, or ballot initiative, that would widen the definition of a person under the state's bill of rights to include a foetus from the day of conception.

Some 70 organisations across America have come together to file testimonies, known as amicus briefs, in support of Gibbs that protest against her treatment on several levels. One says that to treat "as a murderer a girl who has experienced a stillbirth serves only to increase her suffering".

Another, from a group of psychologists, laments the misunderstanding of addiction that lies behind the indictment. Gibbs did not take cocaine because she had a "depraved heart" or to "harm the foetus but to satisfy an acute psychological and physical need for that particular substance", says the brief.

Perhaps the most persuasive argument put forward in the amicus briefs is that if such prosecutions were designed to protect the unborn child, then they would be utterly counter-productive: "Prosecuting women and girls for continuing [a pregnancy] to term despite a drug addiction encourages them to terminate wanted pregnancies to avoid criminal penalties. The state could not have intended this result when it adopted the homicide statute."

Paltrow sees what is happening to Gibbs as a small taste of what would be unleashed were the constitutional right to an abortion ever overturned. "In Mississippi the use of the murder statute is creating a whole new legal standard that makes women accountable for the outcome of their pregnancies and threatens them with life imprisonment for murder."

From protection to punishment

At least 38 of the 50 states across America have introduced foetal homicide laws that were intended to protect pregnant women and their unborn children from violent attacks by third parties – usually abusive male partners – but are increasingly being turned by renegade prosecutors against the women themselves.

South Carolina was one of the first states to introduce such a foetal homicide law. National Advocates for Pregnant Women has found only one case of a South Carolina man who assaulted a pregnant woman having been charged under its terms, and his conviction was eventually overturned. Yet the group estimates there have been up to 300 women arrested for their actions during pregnancy.

In other states laws designed to protect children against the damaging effects of drugs have similarly been twisted to punish childbearers.



Funny how the author uses the word "baby" when the conception is wanted and "foetus" when it's not.

This story illustrates the fundamental misunderstanding of sexual reproduction that permeates our culture. Nowadays we have this insane idea that every child is supposed to survive, when the reality is that, by design, the vast majority of conceptions are supposed to die. It sucks, but that is simply the immutable reality of sexual reproduction: in exchange for producing some individuals who are incredibly well adapted to a wide range of environmental conditions, it also generates an immense diversity of individuals who are poorly adapted or even downright defective. (In contrast to, for example, bacteria, which can produce billions or trillions of beautifully adapted replicas without a hitch, but whose populations are vulnerable to even slight changes in environment.) In our frenetic drive to save every product of conception, we are literally weakening the genetic quality -- and with it, the adaptability -- of our species.

Now I am not necessarily opposed to women whose babies die due to drug use being charged with murder, but I do think there needs to be strong evidence that some action a woman took lead directly to the death of her child before action is taken against her. Otherwise we could end up with an epidemic of women being prosecuted for what amounts to acts of God -- that is, for sexual reproduction taking its intended course.

This story certainly illustrates the danger of the "law of unintended consequences" and highlights the urgency lawmakers should attach to thinking through every conceivable permutation of their proposed laws when they write them. Some prosecutor looking to make a name for himself is always going to try to apply the law way beyond its intended scope, often with bizarre results.
UserPostedImage
Porforis
13 years ago
I think the entire system is convoluted. Either a fetus is a human and is given the same rights a baby would be, it's a pre-human with a firmly-established set of rights, or nonhuman with no rights.

If a fetus is legally considered a human with human rights, abortion should be considered murder. If a fetus is given its own class of rights, they need to be applied evenly and fairly, and said rights laid out a bit more clearly. If a fetus has no rights, you should not be subject to any criminal charges for committing an act resulting in the termination of a fetus.
Cheesey
13 years ago
This is ALWAYS a touchy subject.
I have always felt that killing an unborn child is murder. There was a video tape put out years ago by a pro life group. I believe it was called "Seeing is Believing". I think any woman that is considering an abortion should see it. It might open some eyes.

Anyway......i see a drug addict who has a still birth as guilty of a crime. If it wasn't done on purpose, then i'd call it "manslaughter", as her actions had to have an impact on the child's living or dying. I would think doing a drug test on the fetus cells would tell if it got into the baby's system or not.

If a drug addict has a one hour old baby, and sits on it while it's laying on the couch and smothers it to death, what would you call that?
Yes, we are talking about a child that isn't born yet, but if you believe as i do that a human "fetus" is a person, then it's the same thing.
The Bible talks about unborn children several times, including that when John the baptist's Mom heard about Jesus (while she was pregnant with John) the baby "lept with joy". Also, it says God knew us while we were still in the womb. I'd say that should answer whether or not we are people or not before birth, if you are a Christian at least.
To me, if a woman does things that puts her baby's life at risk, before or after birth, she should be held responsible.

If a man punches a pregnant woman in the stomach, and the baby dies, he's held as a murderer, right? Why should a mother's "choice" matter ONLY if SHE chooses to kill the child? Either it's murder, or it's not.
I know that it's "lawful" to murder an unborn child if the mother doesn't want it. But just because something is legal, doesn't mean it's right. As i have stated before, during world war 2 it was legal in Germany to kill Jewish people. Does anyone here think it was right?
I also believe that there is forgivesness from God for a woman that aborts her child if she asks God to forgive here. Today, woman are taught by "planned parenthood" that it's just a tissue mass, not a child, so it's just FINE to kill it. They are mislead by groups like this. And i think if you check out how planned parenthood was started, and the beliefs they stood for back at their beginning, you'd not look so favorably at them.
UserPostedImage
Nonstopdrivel
13 years ago
As I said, I believe there are actions dangerous to the baby that should be prosecuted as murder if they succeed in killing the baby. My point was that even in the best of situations, a huge proportion of embryos and fetuses die -- as gruesome as it sounds, that's the way it is supposed to work. We need to tread very carefully before charging women with murder unless we can show conclusively they took action to kill their babies.
UserPostedImage
Fan Shout
Mucky Tundra (6h) : The Seattle Seahawks defeat the Chicago Bears 6-3. Jason Myers had 6 RBIs for Seattle while Cairo Santos had 3 RBI for Chicago
beast (7h) : Not nessarily, he might of been injured either way. He's playing about 50% of the games the last 4 years
Zero2Cool (14h) : If they'd been more patient with him, he'd be back already. Putting him out there vs Bears caused him to tweak it and here we are.
packerfanoutwest (14h) : well this is his last season with the PAck, book it
beast (15h) : Sounds like no Alexander (again), I'm wondering if his time with the Packers is done
Zero2Cool (22h) : Could ban beast and I still don't think anyone catches him.
Mucky Tundra (26-Dec) : Houston getting dog walked by Baltimore
packerfanoutwest (25-Dec) : Feliz Navidad!
Zero2Cool (25-Dec) : Merry Christmas!
beast (25-Dec) : Merry Christmas 🎄🎁
beast (24-Dec) : Sounds like no serious injuries from the Saints game and Jacobs and Watson should play in the Vikings game
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : both games Watson missed, Packers won
Martha Careful (24-Dec) : I hope all of you have a Merry Christmas!
Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol
buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier
buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol
Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Jacobs gonna be OK???
Zero2Cool (24-Dec) : Watson gonna be OK???
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I just checked. What tie breaker?
bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ahh, ok.
bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes due to tie breaker
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?
bboystyle (23-Dec) : Minny isnt going to lose out so 5th seed is out of the equation. We are playing for the 6th or 7th seed which makes no difference
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network
beast (23-Dec) : If we win tonight the game is still relative in terms of 5th, 6th or 7th seed... win and it's 5th or 6th, lose and it's 6th or 7th
beast (23-Dec) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.
bboystyle (23-Dec) : i mean game becomes irrelevant if we win tonight. Just a game where we are trying to play spoilers to Vikings chance at the #1 seed
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno
beast (23-Dec) : I agree that it's BS for fans planning on going to the game. But how does it bring in more money? I'm guessing indirectly?
packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I see what you did there Mucky
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : dammit. 3:25pm
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Yeah baby!
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.
beast (23-Dec) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.
packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : ok I stand corrected
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

3h / Random Babble / Mucky Tundra

3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

3h / Random Babble / Mucky Tundra

9h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

9h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

25-Dec / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

25-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

25-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

25-Dec / GameDay Threads / bboystyle

24-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

24-Dec / Random Babble / beast

24-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

22-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / packerfanoutwest

19-Dec / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.