woman who miscarried convicted of manslaughter

[TCB]

13 hours ago, MercyA said:

 

This is not true of me and not true of the other active pro-lifers I have known. 

If I painted pro-choice people with such a broad brush, I'd be immediately taken to task for it. 

First of all Mercy I know that that is absolutely not true of you.

In my opinion a big problem we have in this country (USA) is that many people from the 2 political sides tend to demonize the other side. I have heard people from the right and left say that the other group is aiming for complete control and it terrifies them.

I think we need voices of reason to prevail and that does not seem to be happening and that is so sad, and in my opinion should “terrify” all of us if we are going to be terrified about anything.

[ktgrok]

And to clarify, not saying that disagreements about abortion are not important conversations. But that with stuff like this, it makes sense to work together - this is a point of agreement for many on all sides. We can't afford to infight, as women, amongst each other on stuff like this when there is plenty of consensus. 

[fraidycat]

12 hours ago, RootAnn said:

So, I assume by this statement that you are not in favor of vaccine mandates.

You actually assume wrong. But this is yet another distraction from the original post.

 

[fraidycat]

12 hours ago, RootAnn said:

DP

Edited October 17, 2021 by fraidycat
double post

[Murphy101]

3 hours ago, Katy said:

Not to mention MURDER a conviction was overturned by the supreme court because it had to be handled by tribal courts not the state of Oklahoma.  WTH is going on with this DA? 🤦‍♀️ 

While I agree that being Native American probably didn’t help her situation, it doesn’t mean she automatically should have been dealt with by tribal courts. It depends on many factors. Where the “crime” happened and if she is listed on the tribal rolls and which rolls she is on.

In the murder case you reference, the state knew this should have been a tribal case and so did the tribal courts. The state of Oklahoma has long blatantly ignored the tribal courts and left it to the wealthier tribal courts to fight them about it case by case at the Supreme Court. It’s the state SOP for at least a 100 years now. 

[Kfamily]

This whole thread is highly offensive. It is filled with political insinuations and overtones. I suggest discussing the original topic in a polite and "compassionate" way. I'm so tired of how unkind so many posters here are to each other. Please be considerate of thoughts and ideas other than your own. This board has continually slid down the hostile slope over the years...and I have been reading it for literally decades. This is completely opposite of what we as teachers should model. 

[Melissa Louise]

Jailing a Native American woman for having a miscarriage IS political. The feelings of anti-abortion posters don't really matter in this context. This situation is unjustifiable, and people shouldn't be trying to hedge a justification of it. It's got nothing to do with abortion so why that was brought into the conversation, I've no idea. 

The utterly involuntary act of having a miscarriage - something only women can experience - has been criminalized. If you're not outraged about that, you should be. 

 

 

 

[Harriet Vane]

The case does not in any way recognize the addictive nature of drugs. She should not do drugs when pregnant, but kicking a drug addiction is a terribly difficult process and many, many people find it near impossible to quit even when they have the will and the support to do so. 

[Melissa in Australia]

4 minutes ago, Harriet Vane said:

The case does not in any way recognize the addictive nature of drugs. She should not do drugs when pregnant, but kicking a drug addiction is a terribly difficult process and many, many people find it near impossible to quit even when they have the will and the support to do so. 

Here in Australia a pregnate woman who is a drug addict  is put on free methadone if needed and/or valium. 

It is considered more dangerous for the unborn child to be cycling through drugs and withdrawal. My understanding is that drug withdrawal can be fatal to an unborn child. And very bad if the parent turns to alcohol because they cannot find the drugs they are craving 

[Katy]

15 minutes ago, Melissa in Australia said:

Here in Australia a pregnate woman who is a drug addict  is put on free methadone if needed and/or valium. 

It is considered more dangerous for the unborn child to be cycling through drugs and withdrawal. My understanding is that drug withdrawal can be fatal to an unborn child. And very bad if the parent turns to alcohol because they cannot find the drugs they are craving 

There are methadone clinics.  I don’t know how common they are in her area.  I think in most of the USA maternal drug addiction is the most common reason for a child to be in foster care. Many addicts don’t have healthcare, let alone substance abuse detox, rehab, or mental health care. We basically use prison for that.  It’s morally reprehensible. 

[Melissa in Australia]

Drug use here is not considered a reason to remove a child. Only the extreme neglect that results and only after considerable damage has been done to the child 

Edited October 17, 2021 by Melissa in Australia

[Katy]

6 minutes ago, Melissa in Australia said:

Drug use here is not considered a reason to remove a child. Only the extreme neglect that results and only after considerable damage has been done to the child 

Here drug addiction is considered extreme risk, at least for young children.  Most cases of child trafficking (the real kind, not the conspiracy kind) are addicted mothers trading their child for drugs.  It also commonly leads to extreme neglect and even death. 

Not every state prioritizes this.  But most do. 

[Melissa in Australia]

They are considered extreme risk here as well. The children are given free daycare and lots of intervention. The kids bounce back and forth in and out of foster care  and get completely damaged, grow up and continue the cycle

[Katy]

5 minutes ago, Melissa in Australia said:

They are considered extreme risk here as well. The children are given free daycare and lots of intervention. The kids bounce back and forth in and out of foster care  and get completely damaged, grow up and continue the cycle

I think it used to be that way, but with knowledge of attachment disorders children under 3 generally have a much shorter time before termination of parental rights. It’s done a bit differently in every state.  Texas is known for terminating rights very quickly.  Other states that I don’t want to name have a reputation for moving kids around so they stay in foster care because the system has been outsourced to private agencies that want to maximize revenue. Older kids…. Idk.  I’ve been told kids with extreme abuse were only removed because they were under 6.  8 year olds can apparently care for themselves.  It’s so difficult. 

[Katy]

11 minutes ago, Melissa in Australia said:

They are considered extreme risk here as well. The children are given free daycare and lots of intervention. The kids bounce back and forth in and out of foster care  and get completely damaged, grow up and continue the cycle

And yeah.  One of my children had the same social worker as his bio mom. 

[Melissa Louise]

Drugs in this case are a distraction. 

It was not possible to establish a causal link between drugs and miscarriage,  and other causes of miscarriage were present. 

[MercyA]

2 hours ago, Melissa Louise said:

Jailing a Native American woman for having a miscarriage IS political. The feelings of anti-abortion posters don't really matter in this context. This situation is unjustifiable, and people shouldn't be trying to hedge a justification of it. It's got nothing to do with abortion so why that was brought into the conversation, I've no idea. 

The utterly involuntary act of having a miscarriage - something only women can experience - has been criminalized. If you're not outraged about that, you should be. 

In all fairness, I haven't seen a single person in this thread justifying the decision. As for why it was brought into the conversation, you'd have to ask the posters who, by the fourth post, were immediately making broad mischaracterizations about pro-life people and the pro-life movement. That's what we were pushing back on.   

I could have let it go, but it's getting to be a constant refrain here. Pro-life women are brainwashed, trained, dangerous, terrifying, out for complete control. It's just not true of the vast majority of actively pro-life people I have personally known. 

[TechWife]

On 10/16/2021 at 8:19 PM, Kassia said:

How would you know if someone is a rape or incest victim, though?  Would they be required to prove it?  Is that fair to a victim to be forced to bear the burden of proof and the trauma and loss of privacy that would go along with that?  And what about false accusations from women who want an abortion but haven't been raped (I assume that wouldn't be something that happened frequently, but it would definitely be an issue).  

Believe women.  That’s the default. 

False accusations are incredibly rare. Reporting is rare. Arrests and convictions are rare. 

I am honestly surprised at how often this still has to be said today. We have a long way to go. 
 

FWIW, I’m pro-life, think the TX law is hideous, this is hideous and much more. But on this, I am very strong. Believe women. That’s the default. 

[Melissa Louise]

1 hour ago, MercyA said:

In all fairness, I haven't seen a single person in this thread justifying the decision. As for why it was brought into the conversation, you'd have to ask the posters who, by the fourth post, were immediately making broad mischaracterizations about pro-life people and the pro-life movement. That's what we were pushing back on.   

I could have let it go, but it's getting to be a constant refrain here. Pro-life women are brainwashed, trained, dangerous, terrifying, out for complete control. It's just not true of the vast majority of actively pro-life people I have personally known. 

I honestly don't see much, if any difference between the mindset that sees a natural miscarriage as a criminal act, and the mindset that sees surgical miscarriage as a criminal act. 

[Dmmetler]

26 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

I honestly don't see much, if any difference between the mindset that sees a natural miscarriage as a criminal act, and the mindset that sees surgical miscarriage as a criminal act. 

Especially when you realize that the two have significant overlap in medical recordkeeping and procedures needed. And because I have sat in pregnancy loss groups and heard woman after woman express feelings of guilt and that they had done something wrong-and if a placental abruption is considered a criminal act, it would be a pretty small leap to find a woman guilty of almost any complication. 

[Harriet Vane]

3 hours ago, Katy said:

I think it used to be that way, but with knowledge of attachment disorders children under 3 generally have a much shorter time before termination of parental rights. It’s done a bit differently in every state.  Texas is known for terminating rights very quickly.  Other states that I don’t want to name have a reputation for moving kids around so they stay in foster care because the system has been outsourced to private agencies that want to maximize revenue. Older kids…. Idk.  I’ve been told kids with extreme abuse were only removed because they were under 6.  8 year olds can apparently care for themselves.  It’s so difficult. 

It has been my observation that older kids are almost never protected by the foster care system. They are bounced back and forth in and out of care over years. Their testimony is minimized to a degree that defies logic. So much needless trauma.

[Kassia]

5 hours ago, TechWife said:

Believe women.  That’s the default. 

 

This still forces a victim to come forward and report what happened, which further victimizes them if it's not something they want to do.  Even if all women are believed, all women don't want to report for various reasons and shouldn't be forced to after they've already been victimized.  

[Spryte]

7 hours ago, Kassia said:

This still forces a victim to come forward and report what happened, which further victimizes them if it's not something they want to do.  Even if all women are believed, all women don't want to report for various reasons and shouldn't be forced to after they've already been victimized.  

Yes. Reporting is so much more difficult than we think. Getting police to believe a victim is sometimes difficult. And the exam, if that is necessary, is traumatic and painful. I can’t express how deeply grateful I am to women who do it. The whole process requires strength and conviction to *fight* for justice. 

And now, with firsthand experience with the justice system, I know that most cases don’t get justice. Ever. It makes reporting and the agony that causes feel  pointless. (I’m not saying it is pointless, and fully support and encourage reporting!) For some women the only benefit is knowing that her attacker’s DNA is on file, should he eventually be caught, and maybe there will be justice then. 

Believing women should be the default.

Not re-traumatizing them should be the default.

And punishing women for miscarriages is disgusting. People with addiction need help, and the story above is sickening. 

 

 

[livetoread]

While this story is not directly related to abortion, I think it is the same mind set that values a woman's ability to carry babies more than than the autonomy of the woman herself. Once she's pregnant, her needs must be secondary, and if she doesn't choose that herself, then the gov't must be used to force her to do so. Any woman who dares put her physical or psychological needs above the fetus must be punished. At the same time, resources that help meet those physical and psychological needs should be scarce, because that isn't the government's role. 

I would bet my life savings that the prosecutors who decided to try her, and the jury that convicted her were anti choice. Same mind set.

[El...]

I think the story (which is just appalling) is indeed related to abortion laws, because I remember hearing the foundational arguments for making some of these laws - prolife strategists spoke of using state legislation to confer progressively more legal personhood on the unborn in order to chip away at Roe v. Wade.  I was around pro-life discussions as a child and teen.

This does not mean that any prolife person today would intentionally target this young lady, but I think this lack of empathetic imagination is, or was, pretty common in the movement. IMO, this is why the prolife movement has lost young people like my sisters, who grew up with the dogma, got smacked in the face by suffering people (figuratively), and are now very angry about what they see as a hypocritical care. These laws seem to snare only the poor and disadvantaged.

In this particular case, I don't understand how someone with placental abruption fell afoul of this law at all. It must be very stupidly written to be this broad. Surely this will be overturned, right? It's grotesque. 

[MercyA]

56 minutes ago, elroisees said:

In this particular case, I don't understand how someone with placental abruption fell afoul of this law at all. It must be very stupidly written to be this broad. Surely this will be overturned, right? It's grotesque. 

The fetus had methamphetamine, amphetamine and another drug in his or her brain and liver. But the baby also had some type of abnormality and a uterine infection was also present. There is no way of telling for sure what caused the baby's death, but as I understand it, those drugs are not usually fatal to the fetus. And of course there is no indication whatsoever that the woman intended her child's death. (And, as a previous poster pointed out, it would have been legally permissible for her to abort the baby.) 

[MercyA]

1 hour ago, livetoread said:

While this story is not directly related to abortion, I think it is the same mind set that values a woman's ability to carry babies more than than the autonomy of the woman herself. Once she's pregnant, her needs must be secondary, and if she doesn't choose that herself, then the gov't must be used to force her to do so. Any woman who dares put her physical or psychological needs above the fetus must be punished. At the same time, resources that help meet those physical and psychological needs should be scarce, because that isn't the government's role. 

I would bet my life savings that the prosecutors who decided to try her, and the jury that convicted her were anti choice. Same mind set.

I do not believe a woman's value is in any way, shape, or form dependent on her ability to carry babies. I've dealt with infertility and miscarriage myself. 

I do believe that *all* human beings have value, regardless of their environment, their intellectual or physical development, or their degree of dependence. Yes, sometimes a mother's needs must be secondary to those of her child. That's what happens when there are two human beings to consider. 

Absolutely we should do more to meet women's needs, and in my experience, it's pro-life people who provide--largely with their own funds-- supplies, referrals, legal aid, medical help, etc. to pregnant women and babies. We can and should do much more for women and older children as well and I would be happy to see my tax dollars contribute to that. 

[ktgrok]

19 hours ago, Harriet Vane said:

The case does not in any way recognize the addictive nature of drugs. She should not do drugs when pregnant, but kicking a drug addiction is a terribly difficult process and many, many people find it near impossible to quit even when they have the will and the support to do so. 

And going cold turkey can be more dangerous to the baby than continuing to use. Women need medical supervision to come off illegal (and legal!) drugs while pregnant. Period. 

But that help is often unavailable. Even places with decent drug treatment and methadone clinics and such often refuse to treat pregnant women. 

[Murphy101]

18 hours ago, Melissa Louise said:

I honestly don't see much, if any difference between the mindset that sees a natural miscarriage as a criminal act, and the mindset that sees surgical miscarriage as a criminal act. 

If a tornado knocks my house down while we are in it that’s very different from a third party with a bulldozer doing it.

One is an act of nature that it would not make sense to make illegal. The other is purposeful destruction with the goal of  of causing loss of life. 

Edited October 18, 2021 by Murphy101

[Murphy101]

3 hours ago, ktgrok said:

And going cold turkey can be more dangerous to the baby than continuing to use. Women need medical supervision to come off illegal (and legal!) drugs while pregnant. Period. 

But that help is often unavailable. Even places with decent drug treatment and methadone clinics and such often refuse to treat pregnant women. 

Yes. Again this conviction makes no legal sense to begin with but I think the war on drugs of the 80s produced a LOT of laws and attitudes that we now know are not helpful to reducing addiction or crime. But many people are not particularly caught up on current science and are politically against sound social policy. 

[kiwik]

On 10/17/2021 at 2:23 PM, fraidycat said:

An an organism that cannot survive without using a living host to support it is, in every other scenario, considered a parasite. 

I am myself pro-life for myself. But, because I'm not walking and never have walked an inch in any other person's shoes, I do not ever get to decide for them what they do and do not do with their bodies. Nor can I pretend that I know what is "best" for them. That takes a level of ego that I will never strive to possess.

I am very anti me having an abortion but I support other people's rights to have one.  But this is not an abortion it is a miscarriage.  What say she had a miscarriage due to a car crash - is that criminal?  I do support adding a second charge when someone murders a woman who is in 3rd trimester but I doubt it would do anything but Make the relatives feel a bit better.

[kiwik]

17 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

If a tornado knocks my house down while we are in it that’s very different from a third party with a bulldozer doing it.

One is an act of nature that it would not make sense to make illegal. The other is purposeful destruction with the goal of  of causing loss of life. 

Yes big difference.  

[Drama Llama]

. . . .

Edited October 26, 2021 by BaseballandHockey

[fraidycat]

6 minutes ago, kiwik said:

I am very anti me having an abortion but I support other people's rights to have one.  But this is not an abortion it is a miscarriage.  What say she had a miscarriage due to a car crash - is that criminal?  I do support adding a second charge when someone murders a woman who is in 3rd trimester but I doubt it would do anything but Make the relatives feel a bit better.

Are you asking me? Or just using my post as a jumping off point?

[kiwik]

23 hours ago, Melissa Louise said:

Jailing a Native American woman for having a miscarriage IS political. The feelings of anti-abortion posters don't really matter in this context. This situation is unjustifiable, and people shouldn't be trying to hedge a justification of it. It's got nothing to do with abortion so why that was brought into the conversation, I've no idea. 

The utterly involuntary act of having a miscarriage - something only women can experience - has been criminalized. If you're not outraged about that, you should be. 

 

 

 

And to be honest the only illegal thing she has done is take drugs.  Charge he with by all means (though treatment would be more useful) but only that.

[MercyA]

21 minutes ago, BaseballandHockey said:

In my experience, the largest provider of those things is government, through programs like Medicaid, food stamps, TANF, WIC, childcare vouchers etc . . . Many of the people giving "with their own funds" are also voting for the party that supports defunding this safety net.   Or they don't vote at all.  

Sure. I was referring to private charities. And part of what they do is help women sign up for all the help they can get. It can be complicated. 

You may be right about the voting. It's a fair criticism, but doesn't negate all the good done by pro-life individuals and organizations.

Edited October 18, 2021 by MercyA

[Drama Llama]

. . . .

Edited October 26, 2021 by BaseballandHockey

[KSera]

nm

Edited October 18, 2021 by KSera

[MercyA]

53 minutes ago, BaseballandHockey said:

Of course it does.  If someone donates a few diapers to a crisis pregnancy center, and then doesn't use their vote to support women and children having access to housing, and food, and employment, and medical care, and childcare, it's as if someone gave you a dollar and stole $100 from your bank account.  If someone did that to you, would you say that the dollar they gave you is "negated"?  I would.  

Also, is there data to support the idea that pro-life people donate more money or time?  Or that they donate in ways that are more likely to specifically help women and children?   That isn't supported by what I see in my community. 

Okay then. Everyone must be perfectly consistent in their beliefs and actions to do any good with their charitable dollars? Sorry, not buying it. 🙂 I don't vote, and I don't think a. that makes me a thief or b. that negates any good that my charitable giving might accomplish. 

When I provided information to women outside of abortion clinics, I had a list of perhaps twenty organizations willing to provide material aid and other assistance to pregnant women and young children. Every one of them was run by pro-life people. I did exhaustive searches for these types of agencies in each area in which I lived. I was very thorough. This would have been about a decade ago, but I don't remember seeing any pro-choice organizations that provided equivalent assistance. (This was excluding government agencies and food pantries, which are often but not always run by churches). Just anecdotal, but that was my experience both on the West Coast and in the Midwest.

ETA: And your characterization of pro-lifers as "giving a few diapers" isn't what I've seen among active pro-lifers. I've seen sacrificial, generous giving by people who usually weren't well off themselves. I don't know as much about nominal pro-lifers.

Edited October 18, 2021 by MercyA

[HeartString]

On 10/16/2021 at 7:20 PM, Frances said:

And in my state, they are very involved in funding people running for school boards, although they often try to hide it by creating new PACs to funnel the money. In many areas their PACs are the largest contributors to candidates. I mean what the heck does being being anti-abortion have to do with school boards? And not surprisingly, their candidates are now the same ones opposing mask and vaccine mandates and many are also involved with the anti-CRT rhetoric.

Controlling the school board controls the Sex Ed curriculum. 

[Murphy101]

1 hour ago, MercyA said:

Okay then. Everyone must be perfectly consistent in their beliefs and actions to do any good with their charitable dollars? Sorry, not buying it. 🙂 I don't vote, and I don't think a. that makes me a thief or b. that negates any good that my charitable giving might accomplish. 

When I provided information to women outside of abortion clinics, I had a list of perhaps twenty organizations willing to provide material aid and other assistance to pregnant women and young children. Every one of them was run by pro-life people. I did exhaustive searches for these types of agencies in each area in which I lived. I was very thorough. This would have been about a decade ago, but I don't remember seeing any pro-choice organizations that provided equivalent assistance. (This was excluding government agencies and food pantries, which are often but not always run by churches). Just anecdotal, but that was my experience both on the West Coast and in the Midwest.

ETA: And your characterization of pro-lifers as "giving a few diapers" isn't what I've seen among active pro-lifers. I've seen sacrificial, generous giving by people who usually weren't well off themselves. I don't know as much about nominal pro-lifers.

That’s very much still the case here.

[kiwik]

9 hours ago, fraidycat said:

Are you asking me? Or just using my post as a jumping off point?

Random thought.