American women persecuted for having miscarriages?

[IDrinkaRum]

Article talks about 3 women who fall under the "protect the fetus" laws around the country

Rennie Gibbs was a teenager (15) when she got pregnant. She had a miscarriage at the age of 16 and 36 weeks along due to a cocaine habit.

Bei Bei Shuai was 33 weeks pregnant when she tried to commit suicide. She survived the attempt. However, her fetus did not. It was born, she named the baby and it died.

Amanda Kimbrough gave birth to a child in which genetic tests showed it would be born with Down's Syndrome. The doctors suggested an abortion. She declined as she is not for it. She had a c-section for a premature birth and the child died 19 minutes after it was born. Six months later, this grieving mother was arrested for using drugs (a charge she disputes) during her pregnancy thereby causing the child to die shortly after birth.

I am not a fan of abortion. I would rather see it used as little as possible, or eradicated for all time. However, until the need for abortion is no longer there, prosecuting women who have miscarriages is beyond the pale.

[Greenday]

I am not a fan of abortion. I would rather see it used as little as possible, or eradicated for all time. However, until the need for abortion is no longer there, prosecuting women who have miscarriages is beyond the pale.

Too bad there will be no such day.

Just more cases of fetuses having more rights than the living.

[BlaqueKatt]

prosecuting women who have miscarriages is beyond the pale.

problem is these were not Miscarriages, medically a miscarriage is defined as The spontaneous, premature expulsion of a nonviable embryo or fetus from the uterus. 36 weeks is term, 33 weeks requires minimal medical intervention for survival, and has a 95% survival rate.

I notice they didn't use any of these cases as "examples", but I guess people that haven't been convicted yet and that haven't won appeals yet make for better outrage material.

Jennifer Johnson of Seminole County, Florida was convicted under a drug trafficking law in 1989. It was alleged that, in consuming cocaine during her pregnancy, she had delivered a controlled substance to a minor via the umbilical cord. She was sentenced to one-year in a drug treatment program, 14 years probation, and 200 hours of community service. Johnson appealed and Supreme Court of Florida overturned its decision to convict her in 1992.

Cornelia Whitner of Central, South Carolina pled guilty in 1992 to a charge of criminal child neglect after she was discovered to have used cocaine while pregnant. Sentenced to eight years in prison, she petitioned the Court of Appeals 16 months later, claiming that she had been given ineffective counsel because her lawyer had failed to inform her that the charges laid against her might not be applicable given the legal status of a fetus. However, in the 1997 case Whitner v. South Carolina, the Supreme Court of South Carolina upheld its prosecution of Whitner.

A woman from Winnipeg, Manitoba who had an inhalant addiction in 1996. She had three previous children, and, when she became pregnant a fourth time, Winnipeg Child and Family Services sought a court order permitting her to be committed to a drug rehabilitation facility for the remaining duration of her pregnancy. A judge agreed that the woman should be taken into custody. However, the decision was overturned by the Manitoba Court of Appeal.

Brenda Drummond, 29, of Carleton Place, Ontario tried to abort at 9 months on 28 May 1996 by introducing a pellet gun in her vagina and shooting her fetus in the head. Attempted murder charges against her were dropped since the Criminal Code of Canada definition of "human being" doesn't include fetuses. She was later sentenced to 30 months probation for "failing to provide the necessities of life" for having failed to report the injury immediately after her son's birth.

Melissa Ann Rowland of Salt Lake City, Utah was charged with murder in 2004 after her refusal to undergo a caesarean section resulted in one of the two in her twin pregnancy being stillborn. Rowland was later sentenced to 18 months probation as a result of secondary charge of child endangerment.[

[Ginger Tea]

at nine months, I wouldn't call an unborn baby a fetus
As for the woman of salt lake city, isn't that a largely mormon area and do they see operations in the same way as Jehova Witnesess?
If that is so, then even if she were to die without it, she would willingly let that happen then go against her beliefs.

I'm always iffy with the whole JW stance, when it comes to you and your own life at stake fine and dandy, when it comes to your children, however old they are, they didn't choose to become this religion, they were born into it and have no say in the matter.

[Shards]

I'm going to start by saying that I did not read the article yet, and therefore may lack context, however, only the very last of the three examples you pointed to in the original post managed to garner any sympathy from me. The first one was a viable birth period that would be more accurately be described as stillborn and which was caused by it's mother's inability to control her addiction. That is ENTIRELY on the head of the mother, and should be treated as such.

The second one was also a viable birth period and was caused even more directly by the mother. The first one had an addiction, and wasn't strong enough to fight it. The second one made a conscious decision to take the cowards way out and not even tough it out for the less than a month longer that a full pregnancy would have taken her in order to protect her child from her own selfish cowardism. Infants died because these women wouldn't straighten themselves out. That should be punished.

[Nyoibo]

According to the article the first one hasn't been linked to the use of drugs, just that the mother used them.

This bit is worrying however.

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.

There seems something wrong there.

[FArchivist]

Something I posted on LJ back in March

One of the prime arguments that has been given in the debate of granting legal personhood to the fetus is that the rights of the fetus are the equivalent, if not in some cases superior, to the rights of the parents. Call it the argument of "In defense of the children!" Yet rarely discussed by fetal personhood proponents are the possible unintended consequences of that personhood: that a woman could be incarcerated or otherwise forced against her will to bear a child. The fetal personhood proponents state that such no court would do such a thing, that it would never be allowed to stand.

Except, it already has.

Last March, Florida resident Samantha Burton was in week 25 of her pregnancy when she paid a visit to her doctor. Burton was showing signs of potential miscarriage, so her physician ordered bed rest. Burton explained that, as a working mother of two toddlers, bed rest simply wasn't a viable option and then proceeded to ask for a second medical opinion. Seems reasonable, right?

Her doctor, however, was having none of that. Rather than refer Burton for the desired second opinion, he instead felt it necessary to contact state authorities, who then proceeded to force Burton to be admitted to Tallahassee Memorial Hospital against her will and undergo any procedure the doctor felt like prescribing. When Burton had the audacity to request a change in the hospital in which she was being treated, the court denied her request. Three days into her forced hospitalization, Burton miscarried.


With federal guidelines considering all women to be pre-pregnant, regardless of intent and the existing court doctrine of best interests of the child, why should we be surprised by this? This is the logical extension of the particular argument of fetal personhood.

But weren't her Constitutional rights violated? The court says no; the court ruled against her, claiming that that State was merely maintaining "status quo" in the situation. Or, to quote from the ruling: The trial court stated the rule that “as between parent and child, the ultimate welfare of the child is the controlling factor,” and concluded that the State’s interests in the matter “override Ms. Burton’s privacy interests at this time.”

Eventually, the case was thrown out on appeal...but only because fetal personhood was not considered to be valid and therefore was not a compelling reason for the State of Florida to restrict Burton's rights. If fetal personhood WAS valid, on the other hand, then the story would be entirely different - it WOULD be a compelling reason. And guess what? This isn't the first time this sort of thing has happened either. It's happened twice before in FL and once in CO.

So on seeing this, are we sure we want to go down the route of fetal personhood, now that 'unintended consequences' are shown not just to be possible, but supported by legal argument? Or shall we still traipse down that route, in the best interests of the child?

[FArchivist]

Additional From The March Post From My Friend Bex

CRAP. This is my FAVORITE TOPIC. I've been waiting for some of the utter nonsense re: fetal personhood to be featured here so I could get in on the conversation (I'm kinda a lurker), and it finally happens... while I'm out of town at a conference.

Between 1985 and 2000, more than 200 women in 30 states faced criminal prosecution for their behavior during pregnancy (Paltrow, Cohen & Carey, 2000). There were over a dozen known arrests in 2006 and 2007. Analysis of arrests of pregnant women has revealed overwhelming bias against women of color and a focus on low-income women.

- In 1999, Regina McKnight, a homeless, mentally impaired woman who was pregnant and addicted to cocaine, was charged with murder when her child was stillborn. The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed her murder conviction and upheld the twenty-year sentence imposed (State v. McKnight, 576 S.E.2d 168, 171 (S.C. 2003), cited in Fentiman, 2006).

- In 2004, Melissa Rowland sought assistance at a hospital because she noticed a decrease in fetal movements. Doctors recommended a Caesarean delivery, but Rowland declined. When one of the twins she was carrying was stillborn, Rowland was charged with murder, with prosecutors asserting that she had acted with “depraved indifference to the value of human life”. Also in 2004, Theresa Lee Hernandez was charged with first-degree murder after delivering a stillborn son who tested positive for methamphetamines. She was incarcerated for three years before being convicted of second-degree murder in 2007 and sentenced to 15 years in prison (Flavin, 2009).

- In 2010, Christine Taylor found herself entangled in the criminal justice system when she fell down a flight of stairs in her home (Newman, 2010). Taylor’s husband had left her after she told him she was pregnant with their third child, and Taylor confided in her ER nurse that she was having doubts about continuing the pregnancy, as she was now a single mother already parenting two children. Although Taylor was in the first part of her second trimester, the nurse noted on her chart that she was in the first week of her third trimester, thus making her susceptible to Iowa’s fetal homicide law, which makes it a felony to intentionally terminate a pregnancy "with the knowledge and voluntary consent of the pregnant person after the end of the second trimester" unless a pregnancy is terminated for the reasons of the life or health of the mother. Such a law is structured after the federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which allows for the perpetrator of a violent crime against a pregnant woman to be charged for two crimes - one against the woman and one against her fetus. However, the UVVA explicitly states that nothing in the act “shall be construed to permit the prosecution of any woman with respect to her unborn child” (Flavin, 2009). The nurse told the doctor, the doctor called the police, and the police arrested Taylor. The charges against Christine Taylor were eventually dropped, not because of the misapplication of the law, but because Taylor's doctor confirmed that she was in her second trimester at the time of her fall and not the third.

Anyway. I have soooo much information on this topic - I find it absolutely fascinating and I hope to build my career (criminologist by training) around the intersection between women's reproductive lives and social control. My doctoral dissertation is on women who use drugs when they're pregnant - it's the crux of a million issues, including social construction of "good mothering", racism/classism, arbitrary definitions of what is harmful (illegal drugs versus alcohol/tobacco), fetal rights versus rights of the mother, "moral panics", biosurveillance and the state, the power of the medical profession, and so on and so on. I'm really excited about it, as is probably clear.

Also, for more info on this, check out National Advocates for Pregnant Women. Lynn Paltrow and Jeanne Flavin are both involved with NAPW, and they tend to take on any cases similar to what I've listed above. They have a whole section on the website about the punishment of pregnant women. I find the research a little lacking - it's mostly law review stuff, as Lynn is a lawyer. I would love for them to do more scientific research, but I understand the limitations. A lot of women accept plea agreements because they don't have the resources to take their cases to court, even when they'd likely win, and if the media doesn't pick this stuff up, nobody ever knows about it. Plus, research with pregnant women is notoriously difficult and fraught with logistic and ethical concerns, as I am learning - to do my dissertation, I'm going to have to convince drug-using pregnant women to talk to me, which is no small task considering the risk they face from the CJ system.

[FArchivist]

Also, this article sheds a whole lot of enraging light.

And further, the topic of biosurveillance is a hot one. There's a large push here in the USA to start implanting all women at puberty with GPS-tracked biomonitors that will allow institutions like CPS to permanently monitor you and your pre-pregnant status. All in the best interests of the children, of course. Does it violate privacy? Heck no! Best interests of the child doctrine generally trump all privacy concerns.

[BlaqueKatt]

There's a large push here in the USA to start implanting all women at puberty with GPS-tracked biomonitors that will allow institutions like CPS to permanently monitor you and your pre-pregnant status.

interesting as if there's such a HUGE push I can find ZERO information on it, as a matter of fact the only information I can find on any type of "biomonitoring" is periodic blood and tissue samples being taken(as currently that is the only way to do so-no type of "gps enabled implant" exists, unless you live in say...gattica)to monitor for effects of environmental pollution. A further search for implantable biomonitoring turns up a PDF about a professor at ASU that has a strategy(as in not developed or even a prototype made yet)for one for telemetry, and operating say insulin pumps.

unless you can find and prove the existence of this "magical device" I'm not inclined to believe it exists outside of fiction.....

[radiocerk]

Women are not incubators, and should not be treated like such. Even a perfectly cared-for pregnancy can end in a stillborn child, and most pregnancies are far from perfect.

Women should not lose their rights to self just because they had the bad luck, judgement, etc. to be unintentionally impregnated. And non-impregnated women should not be continually looked at by medically personnel as "potentially pregnant". I find this attitude insulting.

[BlaqueKatt]

And non-impregnated women should not be continually looked at by medically personnel as "potentially pregnant". I find this attitude insulting.

It's not done to be insulting, it's because of a little thing called malpractice, and the huge lawsuits that forced the medical profession to HAVE to take that attitude.

Personally I'd find it more insulting to have a medication given to me that could cause horrible birth defects, or should women who become pregnant while on these medications be forced quite possibly against their will to undergo an abortion?

Since March 2006, new regulations require doctors and patients to register in an electronic database before Accutane can be dispensed. The plan also requires two pregnancy tests. And during treatment, women must take 2 approved forms of birth control and have a pregnancy test each month.

This was done in DIRECT RESULT of lawsuits, not merely to be insulting.

hence the warning "do not take if you are pregnant or may become pregnant"

According to the March of Dimes Foundation, birth defects known to be associated with Accutane include: hydrocephaly (enlargement of the fluid-filled spaces in the brain); microcephaly (small head and brain); mental retardation; heart defects; ear and eye abnormalities; cleft lip and palate; and other facial abnormalities. Severe learning disabilities can appear around age 7-8.

Accutane can cause these birth defects in the early weeks after conception, a time when a woman often doesn't know she's pregnant, the March of Dimes warns.

Accutane info



Depakote causes spina bifida(especially if taken at any time during the first trimester, again when it is most likely for a pregnancy to not be noticed, the first missed period is usually about four weeks into the pregnancy), paxil causes severe heart defects, propecia causes the urinary opening on male fetuses to be on the underside of the penis, Thalidomide is back on the market, and yes we've had more "flipper babies" born because of it.

[blas87]

I also heard that if you by chance get pregnant on Depo Provera, you could have a messed up kid. I'm not sure how true that is, but a coworker that I used to work with said that she was going to wait a while after quitting Depo before she tried to get pregnant at all because she wanted it all out of her system.

[radiocerk]

So, why is this the medical professions job. It is a patient's responsibility to know what the side effects of their medications are, and to deal with those side effects. There are plenty of health conditions that will lead to birth defects. Should we sterilize those people to avoid any problems for the potential children?

[blas87]

I'm a little torn personally, because I have no desire to have kids, but my doctor has a right to protect his/her job by making sure they don't prescribe me something, me forget my Pill, get knocked up and have a child with problems. Beyond that, they also have to make sure they don't prescribe medications that don't mix well.