Caesarean refusal leads to murder charge

What do you think about the world?
Post Reply
User avatar
Siji
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4040
Joined: November 11, 2002, 5:58 pm
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: mAcK 624
PSN ID: mAcK_624
Wii Friend Code: 7304853446448491
Location: Tampa Bay, FL
Contact:

Caesarean refusal leads to murder charge

Post by Siji »

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/West/03/12/m ... index.html

Caesarean refusal leads to murder charge

SALT LAKE CITY, Utah (AP) -- A woman accused of murder because she allegedly avoided a Caesarean section that could have saved her unborn twin has denied the charge, saying she already had scars from earlier C-sections.

Her attorney, meanwhile, said she had a long history of mental illness.

Melissa Ann Rowland, 28, was charged Thursday of showing "depraved indifference to human life," ignoring medical advice to deliver her twins by C-section because she didn't want to be scarred. One nurse told police Rowland said she would rather "lose one of the babies than be cut like that."

Rowland told Salt Lake City radio station KSL from jail that "I already have a pretty nasty scar, it doesn't matter at all now," The Salt Lake Tribune reported.

Her attorney, Michael Sikora, called a C-section major surgery and told the Tribune "it would come as no surprise that a woman with major mental illness would fear it."

The documents allege that Rowland was warned numerous times between Christmas and January 9 that her unborn twins would likely die if she did not get immediate medical treatment, the documents allege. When she delivered them on January 13, the twin girl survived but the boy died.

Shortly afterward, Rowland was jailed on a child endangerment charge involving the surviving twin, who has been adopted by a family Rowland knows.

Rowland told the radio station she has two other children who live with their grandparents in Virginia. Sikora said Rowland moved to Utah with a boyfriend and is either divorced or estranged from her husband. She lives in the Salt Lake City suburb of West Jordan.

A spokesman for the district attorney, Kent Morgan, had said earlier that Rowland was married.

The case could affect abortion rights and open the door to the prosecution of mothers who smoke or don't follow their obstetrician's diet, said Marguerite Driessen, a law professor at Brigham Young University.

"It's very troubling to have somebody come in and say we're going to charge this mother for murder because we don't like the choices she made," she said.

The woman sought medical advice in December because she hadn't felt the fetuses move, documents said.

Regina Davis, a nurse at LDS Hospital in Salt Lake, told police that during a visit there, Rowland was recommended two hospitals to go to for immediate care. Rowland allegedly said she would rather have both twins die before she went to either of the suggested hospitals.

On January 2, a doctor at LDS Hospital saw Rowland and recommended she immediately undergo a C-section based on the results of an ultrasound and the fetus' slowing heart rates. Rowland left after signing a document stating that she understood that leaving might result in death or brain injury to one or both twins, the doctor told police.

The same day, a nurse at Salt Lake Regional Hospital saw Rowland, who allegedly told her she had left LDS Hospital because the doctor wanted to cut her "from breast bone to pubic bone," a procedure that would "ruin her life."

LDS Hospital can't comment on the case because of medical privacy issues and the pending court case, said spokesman Robert Pexton.

The doctor who performed an autopsy found that the fetus died two days before delivery and would have survived if Rowland had undergone a C-section when urged to do so. It was not immediately clear how far along Rowland was in her pregnancy.

She was charged in Salt Lake County with one first-degree felony count of criminal homicide. Rowland was being held on $250,000 bail at the Salt Lake County jail, and was scheduled to appear in court Tuesday.

If convicted, she could be sentenced to between five years and life in prison.

"We are unable to find any reason other than the cosmetic motivations by the mother" for her decision, Morgan said.

Caesarean sections usually involve delivery through a surgical incision in the abdomen and front wall of the uterus. Dr. Christian Morgan, a family practice doctor who regularly performs C-sections at the University of Utah Health Sciences Center, said he had never seen vertical skin incisions performed at LDS Hospital for a first-time C-section.

"Even when you need to get a baby out in minutes, it can still be done in the bikini incision," Christian Morgan said.



------
Ok, aside from Mydnight.. who could agree with this crap? And before you respond, remember that some religious don't allow certain medical procedures (not saying it's the case THIS time) - ie: Jehovah's Witnesses - no blood transfusions. If one of their children are dying and need blood, guess what, they're going to die. And guess what, there's not going to be any legal charges. So because someone's affhiliated with some fucked up religious group, they're legally exempt? Please.

Women are not fucking baby factories, their bodies are not to be controlled just because they can output something. It's still THEIR life, and it's still THEIR choice. Doctors are NOT Gods and they DON'T know everything. What's next, being forced to take medications because a doctor recommends it? What if I don't fucking want to? How about, um, fucking off.
Last edited by Siji on March 13, 2004, 4:27 am, edited 2 times in total.
Voronwë
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 7176
Joined: July 3, 2002, 12:57 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Post by Voronwë »

i'm not sure murder is an appropriate charge. i dont know what the right answer is really. if she is truly mentally ill, then ....
User avatar
Krurk
Gets Around
Gets Around
Posts: 188
Joined: July 7, 2002, 9:40 pm

Post by Krurk »

Tubes tied?
User avatar
Sirensa
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1822
Joined: September 16, 2002, 7:56 pm

Post by Sirensa »

Krurk wrote:Tubes tied?
Definately.

As well as time in a mental hospital.
Runcade
Gets Around
Gets Around
Posts: 116
Joined: October 28, 2003, 12:18 am

Post by Runcade »

from what i read out of the article she had previous children taken away from her probably resulting from the mental problem issues. i am all for making sure she never has the oppurtunity to have children again but i don't know if a murder charge is appropriate
User avatar
Pahreyia
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1936
Joined: October 13, 2002, 11:30 pm
Location: Povar

Post by Pahreyia »

I would agree with criminally negligent homicide in this case.

I see no part of that report that states that she was of a certain religious persuasion that expressly forbade her from receiving a C section.

I know that I'm walking a razors edge here between women's rights and the right to life, but the fact remains that this woman was criminally negligent in caring for her children, unborn or otherwise, and this lead to the death of one of them. If she was concerned enough to go to a doctor because she didn't feel the fetuses move, she sure as hell should have been concerned enough to have those babies delivered.

The simple fact is this: Scars from c sections can be removed via plastic surgery techniques. Yes, they're expensive, and you know what, it might hurt a little. But when the choice is between saving lives at what I am assuming is an end-stage of pregnancy (since the report stated she went to the hospital in January and was advised to have the c section then, you can reasonably assume we're talking about ~6th month or so, making March an 8-9th month delivery), the choice should be to undertake a procedure that will provide discomfort and a cosmetic scar rather than to sacrifice the life of a child.

I don't want to imply making a sweeping allegation that all mothers who don't carry their children to term or elect out of caesarians for medical, religious or other reasonable decisions should be prosecuted, but for this case, this ONE case, I do believe that the woman should be held accountable for her decisions and the reprocussions of her negligence.
User avatar
Winnow
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 27727
Joined: July 5, 2002, 1:56 pm
Location: A Special Place in Hell

Post by Winnow »

Siji

When you post a new topic, try to make your subject more descriptive. You tend to title everything "What the" which doesn't help the interest selection process.


Maybe keep the "What the" if you must but follow it up with "Caesarean refusal leads to murder charge " as an example on this thread.

This could be a pet peeve for message boards!
Last edited by Winnow on March 12, 2004, 7:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Midnyte_Ragebringer
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 7062
Joined: July 4, 2002, 1:59 pm
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: Daellyn
Location: Northeast Pennsylvania

Post by Midnyte_Ragebringer »

Aside from Midnyte?

Well my opinion is she should be sent to jail. She was given an opportunity to save her baby and passed on it. She doesn't really seem mentally fit to be walking the streets anyway.
Ebumar
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1302
Joined: July 8, 2002, 8:22 pm
Location: YOUR MOM'S HOUSE

Post by Ebumar »

We need to have mandatory tube tieings for anyone that is mentally ill, or if the person has an IQ less than average.
Aaeamdar
Almost 1337
Almost 1337
Posts: 721
Joined: July 8, 2002, 2:18 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Post by Aaeamdar »

A woman refused a medical procedure. Should pretty much be the end of the conversation.
User avatar
Lalanae
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 3309
Joined: September 25, 2002, 11:21 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Post by Lalanae »

Winnow wrote:Siji

When you post a new topic, try to make your subject more descriptive. You tend to title everything "What the" which doesn't help the interest selection process.


Maybe keep the "What the" if you must but follow it up with "Caesarean refusal leads to murder charge " as an example on this thread.

This could be a pet peeve for message boards!
I've been guilty of doing that. but I will change...

if people stop just putting a link to an article. Quoting the article in the thread is courteous.
Lalanae
Burundi High Chancellor for Tourism, Sodomy and Pie
Unofficial Canadian, Forbidden Lover of Pie, Jesus-Hatin'' Sodomite, President of KFC (Kyoukan Fan Club), hawt, perververted, intellectual submissive with E.S.P (Extra Sexual Persuasion)
User avatar
Adex_Xeda
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 2278
Joined: July 3, 2002, 7:35 pm
Location: The Mighty State of Texas

Post by Adex_Xeda »

Ebumar, you words sound dangerously close to those of a eugenicist.

A dark chapter in the early 1900s.
User avatar
Ashur
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 2604
Joined: May 14, 2003, 11:09 am
Location: Columbus OH
Contact:

Post by Ashur »

The murder charge is rediculous as long as abortions are legal in this country.

No, it wasn't a happy outcome, nor was she very wise - but did she kill the baby herself? No. Nature did that.
- Ash
User avatar
Xzion
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 2567
Joined: September 22, 2002, 7:36 pm

Post by Xzion »

Ashur wrote:The murder charge is rediculous as long as abortions are legal in this country.

No, it wasn't a happy outcome, nor was she very wise - but did she kill the baby herself? No. Nature did that.
Exactly, they have no grounds whatsoever to charge her with murder. If ANYTHING maybe a manslaughter charge, or if she is mentally ill some treatment or time in a mental hospital would be ideal.
-xzionis human mage on mannoroth
-zeltharath tauren shaman on wildhammer
User avatar
Pahreyia
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1936
Joined: October 13, 2002, 11:30 pm
Location: Povar

Post by Pahreyia »

Xzion wrote:
Ashur wrote:The murder charge is rediculous as long as abortions are legal in this country.

No, it wasn't a happy outcome, nor was she very wise - but did she kill the baby herself? No. Nature did that.
Exactly, they have no grounds whatsoever to charge her with murder. If ANYTHING maybe a manslaughter charge, or if she is mentally ill some treatment or time in a mental hospital would be ideal.
The problem with manslaughter is that it requires action on the part of the woman (in this case). As far as I see the case, it was her inaction that led to the death of the child. Her refusal of the necessary treatment for a vain and fruitless purpose showed a depraved indifference to the life of her children, followed by her negligence in taking proper action.

If she didn't want the caesarian, she could have possibly opted for a prematurely induced labor and possibly saved the life of her child that way as well. If the child had died during birth, then at least her actions would have been directed towards the well-being of the child.

To meet the statues of murder and/or manslaughter, it would take an action on her part, whether intentional or not that caused the death of another person. Criminally Negligent Homicide is akin to seeing a person get shot on the sidewalk next to you, stopping long enough to see that they're still alive, and then walking off as if nothing happened or you had no concern for the life of the person on the street. Let's say that the person bleeds to death on the sidewalk, and somehow you (in general) are seen on videotape watching that person die without taking action. You can be held liable for criminally negligent homicide because you never thought to nor took action that could save the life of anohter being, in fact, you practically ignored the situation outright.

I think that the murder charge will flop. There's just no way to sustain it given the facts presented in that report. If there are other facts or circumstances that are not mentioned, perhaps the murder rap will stick. It's just unfortunate that the DA wants to stick it to her for a 25 to life over something that can be easily argued against when a stronger case for a 5 to 15 sentence exists.
User avatar
Pahreyia
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1936
Joined: October 13, 2002, 11:30 pm
Location: Povar

Post by Pahreyia »

In researching this topic briefly, I came across this statement from the congressional records regarding the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 1999 HR2436. This bill was passed by the House on February 26, 2004 and is currently in the Senate.

During Congressional testimony, a Mr Conyers, representative from Michigan testified that the scpoe of the act would include acts by the mother that would place her child at harm:
She could be held liable for any behavior during her pregnancy having potential adverse effects on her fetus, including failing to eat properly or using prescriptions or illegal drugs, smoking, drinking, exposing herself to infectious disease or to work place hazards, or even using general anesthetic or drugs to induce rapid labor during delivery.
The text of the act reads as:
‘§ 1841. Protection of unborn children
‘‘(a)(1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any
of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby
causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section
1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct
takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this sec-
tion.
‘‘(2)(A) Except as otherwise provided in this para-
graph, the punishment for that separate offense is the
same as the punishment provided under Federal law for
that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the un-
born child’s mother.
require proof that—
''(i) the person engaging in the conduct had
knowledge or should have had knowledge that the
victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or
‘‘(ii) the defendant intended to cause the death
of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child.
‘‘(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby
intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that
person shall instead of being punished under subpara-
graph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111,
1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or at-
tempting to kill a human being.
Taken hesitantly from: http://www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/UVVA ... 201997.pdf

Under this law, she can be held responsible for not taking action where the life of her child was in jeopardy. Inasmuch as the provisions of the law describe, she can be charged with the same punishment as a person who kills the mother.

It may be fairly sanctimonious right-to-life law from the Bush administration, but it did pass with a 254-163 margin.
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act explicitly excludes abortion, and excludes any act committed by the mother herself, legal or illegal.

The 28 state fetal-homicide laws, some of which have been enforced for decades, have had no effect on abortion.

Criminal defendants and advocacy groups have mounted over a dozen legal challenges to state unborn-victims laws — and every one has failed in the federal and state courts. The 1994 ruling of the California supreme court is typical: "[W]hen the mother's privacy interests are not at stake, the Legislature may determine whether, and at what point, it should protect life inside a mother's womb from homicide."

In its 1989 Webster ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court lifted a lower-court order against the most comprehensive of the state laws, a Missouri statute stipulating that "the life of each human being begins at conception," and that the "unborn child" has the rights of others under all state laws (including criminal laws), with the Supreme Court observing that this law could be constitutionally applied outside the realm of abortion.

The courts have held that such laws may be constitutionally applied whether or not an attacker knew of the unborn victim's existence. For example, the Minnesota supreme court upheld the double-homicide indictment of a man charged with killing a woman who, on post-mortem examination, was discovered to be about 28 days pregnant, noting: "The possibility that a female homicide victim of childbearing age may be pregnant is a possibility that an assaulter may not safely exclude." What an excellent, woman-protective doctrine to establish in the law!

Former acting Solicitor General Walter Dellinger of Duke University School of Law, who served President Clinton as his advisor on constitutional issues and authored Clinton's 1993 abortion-related executive orders, said, "I don't think they [fetal-homicide laws] undermine Roe v. Wade. The legislatures can decide that fetuses are deserving of protection without having to make any judgment that the entity being protected has freestanding constitutional rights." Among the other prominent defenders of Roe v. Wade who recently have voiced similar views are Professors Michael Dorf, Richard Parker, and Sherry Colb, of the Columbia, Harvard, and Rutgers law schools, respectively.
These taken from the National Review, again hesitantly, however still more fact than spin... However the article outlines John Kerry's response to this act, in case anyone is interested on seeing what his views are.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/j ... 050947.asp

The senate is set to vote on this act was early as the week of March 22, 2004.

Although the passage of this law will not be used to prosecute this particular woman, I think that the law adequately sums up my views on the matter and does help to define the limits and intentions of this topic in a way that makes it debatable.

(Addendum: sorry for spelling/grammatical errors or sentences that don't quite make sense..)
User avatar
Siji
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4040
Joined: November 11, 2002, 5:58 pm
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: mAcK 624
PSN ID: mAcK_624
Wii Friend Code: 7304853446448491
Location: Tampa Bay, FL
Contact:

Post by Siji »

Pahreyia wrote:The simple fact is this: Scars from c sections can be removed via plastic surgery techniques.
Pah, you're missing the particular point about the "claim" that she refused the c-section because she didn't want the scar. She ALREADY HAS a scar from a previous c-section. Anyone claiming (not speaking of you, but of whoever made the accusation in the beginning) she said she didn't want it because of that reason, well, is stupid since she already has it.

She refused medical treatment. Her reasons are her own. I may not agree with them, and I may think they're wrong, but I believe she has the right to decide what a doctor will and won't do to her body - just as I think everyone else has that same right. As I said before, doctors do not know everything. There's a real reason they call it practicing medicine.

I'm fairly certain it's not a very good idea to give doctors the power to start "controlling" what people must or must not do medically. Especially in a world where peoples religious and personal beliefs differ drastically, let alone taking into account the corruption of medical benefits companies.

Lastly, if this was something that was going to without a doubt, definitely going to be considered murder on the woman's part if she didn't follow the doctor's advice, then I would want the doctor held just as liable for allowing her to leave the hospital without the procedure. He's just as responsible for the baby's death as the woman is. He could have called the police and reported it as soon as he learned about it. But he didn't. Because we have the right to choose what is done to our bodies or not.
User avatar
emmer
Almost 1337
Almost 1337
Posts: 612
Joined: July 23, 2002, 5:30 pm

Post by emmer »

hot damn thats one ugly bitch
Wiever
Star Farmer
Star Farmer
Posts: 417
Joined: October 15, 2002, 11:56 pm
Location: Mission Beach, California

Post by Wiever »

I am not sure how this applies to in-hospital care, but in pre-hospital care (EMT-Basic through Paramedic) we can operate on implied consent. Implied consent is the concept of decision making for the patient that can not make a rational decision, whether this be an unconcious patient, mentaly ill, head injury, or a variety of other situations that my cause a person in a compromised mental state.
User avatar
Mak
Almost 1337
Almost 1337
Posts: 834
Joined: August 5, 2002, 4:13 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ
Contact:

Post by Mak »

As tragic as the whole story is, I am surprised that she is being charged. Had she simply said, "I want an abortion", a Dr. could have shoved a scalpel into the baby's brain at that same stage of development and it would have just been another number in a statistic.
Makora

Too often it seems it is the peaceful and innocent who are slaughtered. In this a lesson may be found that it may not be prudential to be either too peaceful or too innocent. One does not survive with wolves by becoming a sheep.
Voronwë
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 7176
Joined: July 3, 2002, 12:57 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Post by Voronwë »

pretty sure she would have had a hard time getting a physician to perform an abortion on one of two twins at 38 weeks gestational age.
User avatar
Deward
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1653
Joined: August 2, 2002, 11:59 am
Location: Wisconsin
Contact:

Post by Deward »

Just came out that she was trying to sell the babies. The surviving one was adopted soon after birth and she was still tryign to sell teh stillborn one for bail money. Pathetic.

My wife and I are the biggest pro-choice supporters around but we were both disgusted with the actions of this woman. I think the mentally incapable bit is just a show to try and deflect blame on herself. Far as I know, most states don't allow marriage if you are mentally incompetent. In my opinion, she is just incredibly stupid. That being said, I don't think she will get convicted of first degree murder. I would like to see her spend some time in jail for negligence though and in a perfect world her tubes would be tied. The fact that this occurred in Utah probably means she will get convicted of something.
Deward
Voronwë
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 7176
Joined: July 3, 2002, 12:57 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Post by Voronwë »

what is your source for that?
Mawafu
Star Farmer
Star Farmer
Posts: 322
Joined: July 3, 2002, 1:55 pm
Location: SoCal

Post by Mawafu »

what is your source for that?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/15/caesa ... index.html

SALT LAKE CITY, Utah (AP) -- Prosecutors are investigating whether a woman charged with killing her baby by refusing a Caesarean section tried to scam a couple by offering to sell them the non-existent child for bail money, a newspaper reported.

Deputy Salt Lake County District Attorney Kent Morgan told the Deseret News his office was reviewing the allegations from a California couple who said they accepted collect telephone calls from Melissa Rowland from jail.

Rowland, 28, accused of refusing a C-section for her unborn twins because she feared scarring, has been jailed on criminal homicide and child endangerment charges. She has denied refusing a C-section.

In a jailhouse interview Friday with The Associated Press, Rowland said without prompting that she had not tried to sell the babies, but did not elaborate. The latest allegations apparently came after the interview.

One of the twins, a boy, was stillborn on January 13. A girl survived and has since been adopted, but prosecutors say she tested positive for cocaine and alcohol, which resulted in the child endangerment charges. She is scheduled to be in court Tuesday on that charge.

Monday, Rowland pleaded innocent to one count of criminal homicide. She appeared in court via video teleconference from jail, and her attorney entered the plea.

Brian Farley told the newspaper for Sunday's editions that the adoption agency he and his wife were using contacted them about possibly adopting Rowland's baby boy.

The Sacramento couple said Rowland offered to give them a boy if they paid her $5,000 bail. They were unaware that Rowland had already given birth to a stillborn baby boy and thought she was in jail only on child endangerment charges.

Under the assumption their attorney had checked Rowland's background, Farley said he and his wife agreed to accept collect telephone calls from the woman from jail. The calls began February 26 and ended March 2, he said.

Rowland's attorney has said she had a long history of mental illness.
User avatar
Pahreyia
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1936
Joined: October 13, 2002, 11:30 pm
Location: Povar

Post by Pahreyia »

It'll take a slimey fucking lawyer to get her off on an insanity defense.
User avatar
Marbus
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 2378
Joined: July 4, 2002, 2:21 am
Contact:

Post by Marbus »

As Vor alluded to, you can't have an abortion at 38 weeks... you carry 9 months you are responsible for that life. I'm sorry, I'm still agrew with a right to choose when it's still a clump of cells but this was NOT the case.

Sure even an infant need's help surviving but NO ONE who has an IQ above 40 would argue that a full term fetus was not alive. If she didn't want stretch marks or the possibility of another scare she shouldn't have gotten pregnant. Most OB's don't do VBACs anymore anyway so she should have been told (as it sounds like she was) that she would most likely have a C-Section.

You guys know I'm pretty liberal on most topic... the driving force of that being that we should take care of one another. In this case if she isn't charged with at least neg. homacide who is looking out for that Child? Not a few cells mind you that the mother can "choose" what to do with but a thriving infant that just happened to be trapped in some dumb ass bitch's womb... it's not the child's fault she's stupid, is it?

I currently can't condon eugenics... however it's cases like this and just looking at most third world countries that make you wonder or at least consider it in passing... We use to joke that someone needed to just put a big sign that said "STOP FUCKING!" but that's not going to happen... the LEAST we can do is provide some type, at least offer, some type of birth control, especially for people that don't have the mental capacity to choose...

Marb
User avatar
Akanae
Star Farmer
Star Farmer
Posts: 290
Joined: September 20, 2002, 12:40 am

Post by Akanae »

Getting a C-Section is major surgery. I think that the choice should be up to the mother.
Maybe "god" or "mother nature" or "the forces in charge" didnt want this baby to be born?
Maybe it wasnt supposed to be born since it couldnt be concieved naturaly.

Now having said that, if I were in her position I would probably have gotten the c-section even though I am terrified of any sort of surgery/needles etc. But it was her decision, its not like she stabbed herself in the stomach with a broken bottle.

On the other hand I do think women who smoke/do drugs/drink when they are pregnant should be fined. Since they are doing something that they know is harming their child. I used to work with a woman who smokes and has a ratio of about 4 miscarriages to every sucessful pregnancy.
WOW - Eewy priest of Cenarius
EQ- Akanae Tendo officer of OTB ~retired~
COH - Akanae Empathy Defender on Pinnacle ~retired~
Aaeamdar
Almost 1337
Almost 1337
Posts: 721
Joined: July 8, 2002, 2:18 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Post by Aaeamdar »

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20040316.html

An article a friend of mine wrote about this prosecution.
Post Reply