Purvi Patel Sentence of 20+ Years for Miscarriage

PRESS RELEASE: NAPW Decries Purvi Patel Sentence of 20+ Years

http://advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/blog/2015/03/post_6.php

PRESS RELEASE, FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, March 30, 2015

Contact:Lynn Paltrow, (212) 255-9252; Kathrine Jack, Indiana Counsel (317) 477-2300; Sara Ainsworth, NAPW (212) 255-9252

NATIONAL ADVOCATES FOR PREGNANT WOMEN DECRIES PURVI PATEL SENTENCE OF 20+ YEARS

First Conviction and Sentence for the Crime of Feticide Because a Woman Sought to Terminate Her Own Pregnancy

South Bend, Indiana: Today, a St. Joseph County judge sentenced Purvi Patel to more than 20 years for the crimes of feticide and neglect of a dependent. While Patel consistently maintained that she experienced a miscarriage, prosecutors claimed that she attempted to terminate her own pregnancy but gave birth to a baby who she then neglected and allowed to die. Today's sentence followed from the court's decision to allow Indiana's feticide law to be used as a mechanism for prosecuting women who attempt to terminate a pregnancy and from the prosecution's use of discredited and invalid scientific testimony to persuade the jury that the baby had been born alive.

National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW) Executive Director Lynn Paltrow expressed deep disappointment at the extreme sentence: "While no woman should face criminal charges for having an abortion or experiencing a pregnancy loss, the cruel length of this sentence confirms that feticide and other measures promoted by anti-abortion organizations are intended to punish not protect women ."

Ms. Patel is not the first woman in the U.S. to have been arrested and charged with a crime for terminating her own pregnancy or based on allegations that she had attempted to do so. This case, however, is the first time any woman has been charged, convicted, and sentenced for the crime of feticide for having attempted to end her own pregnancy.

i think that if jedi want to be politically active in a cohesive way this ought to be nominated as a potential campaign

I had a couple of initial reactions which ranged from "WTF" to “This is what happens when people don’t have access to safe birth control or abortion options” and even "she knew what she was doing”.

I went and did some research and learned a heck of a lot more about infanticide, feticide and neonaticide and its history than I needed to know. Grim and upsetting reading I assure you. What I found most interesting in the history of the laws in question is that when they were originally created in europe, they ONLY prosecuted women who were either unmarried or had given birth to illegitimate children. The law was essentially a way to punish women for sexual immorality. Which seems to be the case here too. It was very seldom used to prosecute those who sold abortifacients or performed abortions, which is, we're told, the purpose of the laws currently.

I have been unable to find even a mention of any illegal abortion providers being prosecuted using a law designed for that purpose. (doesnt mean its not out there, sure. But I couldnt find even one)

Everything that I’ve been able to find on the subject says that women who commit feticide or neonaticide (killing a child within 24 hours of birth) are almost invariable young, single, financially in crisis and most often, women of colour. This naturally makes me to bring up things that we trot out regularly with the abortion debate. Better education, non judgemental and financially viable access to birth control, and access to safe legal abortions (though interestingly that stats for the abortion demographic is very difference than those of neonaticide) Less shame and moral judgement when it comes to womens sexual activity and more support in avoiding unwanted pregnancies can only be a good thing.

And I believe that ALL of these things are very valid and necessary. As is the recognition of genuine cases of post partum psychosis.

But one thing that I simply cant get past is that the overwhelming majority of women who do kill children shortly after birth or suffer botched abortion attempts, have hidden the pregnancy. I cannot make an assumption and say that they would have had safe abortions if they were able, but that is my feeling. A hidden pregnancy, a concealed birth and a refusal to admit the existence of either until forced doesn’t say much of the desire to have the child in the first place, whatever the circumstances. I cant imagine the emotional pain of having to make the choice. But it IS a choice.

I am not convinced that she did not attempt an abortion that went wrong but I do believe that the trial is a travesty. And I do think that an agenda is at play.

Brenna said:

And I do think that an agenda is at play.

good observation....enter the so called moral majority...or religious right...or whatever else they want to be called...

i'm still not sure how to feel about the case in the article ...there isn't enough detailed information pertaining to the case for me to come to a conclusion in either direction....but i do agree that this case is smothered in the taint of religious influence on law...one more reason i think church and state need to be kept separate...

Besides the links in the press release (at least read those) there's plenty of further information available by googleing Purvi Patel. The evidence is so weak it's far beyond reasonable doubt as I see it. Another thing is she was convicted of two crimes yet one excludes the other. If she intentionally caused the death of a fetus then it was not born alive. But she was also convicted of homicide by negligence which can only be if a baby is born alive.

Besides these issues I pose this question. Assuming she intentionally attempted a self abortion what should (if anything) be the penalty?

Br. John wrote:
Besides these issues I pose this question. Assuming she intentionally attempted a self abortion what should (if anything) be the penalty?

Well abortion not signed off by two doctors and for specific medical reasons is illegal, so in theory, shes should be penalized according to that law.

But its a law that as far as im concerned should not exist.

When I look at the history of abortion in general, from what I already knew and what Ive learned today, it has always happened, throughout recorded human history. Regardless of laws, of shame, of control. So clearly every effort made to eradicate abortion has not worked. Attempting to tighten the grip of the legislation is clearly insanity.

Also, the irony and hypocrisy cannot be ignored.

If we take the account of what makes a person (not simply homo sapien) by some philosophers, it is the ability to think rationally. That has its problems, sure, but this essentially divides people into two categories (those who accept that definition):
1. The ability to eventually have rational thought.
2. The ability to think rationally.

Now, if I were to accept the second view there would be no issue here, so I'll think about the first view. What has the ability to eventually have rational thought, and moreover, what has the ability to have the DNA and skeletal structure, etc. of a homo sapien? A fetus does, yes. But so do sex cells, the sperm and egg. If I say that it is wrong to be responsible for a life ending, that should extend to all living things -- and that has its problems as well. Now, if I say that it is wrong to be responsible for a person's life ending (a person being a living organism with the ability to eventually have rational thought and be homo sapien) I would have to include sperm and eggs in that statement, because those cells have the ability to become rational homo sapiens under the right conditions, just as a fetus has the ability to become a rational homo sapien under the right conditions.

And if I follow that line of thought, the same punishment should be met equally every time a man releases sperm intentionally, or every time a woman does not intentionally prevent herself from having a period. In addition, any time someone uses a pregnancy prevention tactic -- tubes tied, vasectomy, condoms, birth control, etc. -- they should also meet the same level of punishment. This is unreasonable, of course, and we shouldn't condone punishment for these things. Since this is what the second stance leads to, I will say that a person insofar as I am concerned is a homo sapien with the ability to think rationally, for the sake of this post.

A pregnancy, coming to terms with wanting to end a pregnancy, and actually going through with ending a pregnancy are all very difficult parts of a person's life if they choose to go through with them. That in itself is punishment enough, in my opinion (not to mention the physical toll of an abortion!) for aborting a fetus. A fetus is, by my definition, not a person. It neither meets the standards of mental activity nor the physiological standards for being a person. Infanticide is completely different than having an abortion.

I don't think she performed an illegal abortion, I think she miscarried. But even if she had performed an illegal abortion -- so what? By the definition I have provided, she hasn't been responsible for the death of a person. Now, I'm not saying abortion is a good thing at all. I am merely suggesting that it is morally neutral. If it were a good thing, everyone would constantly be getting abortions and the species would die off, and it is absurd to say that is good. Why is it neutral rather than bad? I will expand on that.

All animals, including humans, kill. They will kill for food or safety or other things which essentially provide the function of improving or maintaining a certain quality of life (or maintaining life itself). A bad action would be to kill for no reason or for sport. However, if an animal were significantly harming a person or animal's quality of life, it would be best to remove the animal and, if no other option were available or if it would only lead to the animal harming the quality of life of another group by moving it, then it would be permissible to kill the animal. But this is not a good action, nor is killing for food; they are morally neutral in that they are neither good nor bad. A fetus presents someone with the possibility of a life-shattering circumstance. The physical reaction of the body to being pregnant is extremely difficult as well, but if a child is born then the mother either will have to raise the child (a daunting task) or give it up for adoption (which is also a difficult choice to make). The fetus is presenting itself as a problem, and like any other animal, we would do our best to maintain a certain quality of life in both terms of physical and mental. Having a child can be wonderful, I'm sure, but until the fetus is a child it is not yet a person, and it is not morally wrong nor is it a morally good thing to abort.

I see no reason why she should be punished; she has already suffered emotionally, physically, and probably financially enough.

Br. John wrote: Besides the links in the press release (at least read those) there's plenty of further information available by googleing Purvi Patel. The evidence is so weak it's far beyond reasonable doubt as I see it. Another thing is she was convicted of two crimes yet one excludes the other. If she intentionally caused the death of a fetus then it was not born alive. But she was also convicted of homicide by negligence which can only be if a baby is born alive.

Besides these issues I pose this question. Assuming she intentionally attempted a self abortion what should (if anything) be the penalty?

I read this a few days ago, from what I read she suffered a miscarriage and then left the still-born in a dumpster. The prosecution however argues I think that she induced an abortion which failed and then left the still alive baby to die. From what I understand the defence had shown (or argued) the baby was already dead at birth, thereby showing it was a miscarriage.

I'm probably along the lines of allowing the woman to perform an abortion at any time she wants in the pregnancy even after 24 weeks. That being said there are many who are against it which is why it is nonsensical that the law should be a binary all or nothing: no abortion whatsoever in any circumstances, or abortion at any time under any and all circumstances. Better a compromise of "some number of weeks which allows one to be adequately informed of the full consequences and decision". 22/24 weeks seems like plenty of time for that decision to be made in, especially since for the first couple of weeks the lady might not immediately realise she is pregnant.

As for the case itself, this is probably it from the point of view of the prosecution: This lady gave birth to a baby and then left that baby to die. That's the argument being made and if this baby had been born "normally" then no doubt she would have been prosecuted.

All that being said her punishment seems to be way over-proportionate, most especially if she did just have a miscarriage! All I can think this case will do is drive pregnant women further away from the help they need when they are particularly vulnerable. I don't know this lady but unlesss she did this maliciously and with evil intent then I can't see how her sentence is a proper application of justice.

I wonder what would have happened if her defence had been an illegal abortion? Then at least she could have argued the baby was dead before it left her body.

Brenna wrote: I went and did some research and learned a heck of a lot more about infanticide, feticide and neonaticide and its history than I needed to know. Grim and upsetting reading I assure you. What I found most interesting in the history of the laws in question is that when they were originally created in europe, they ONLY prosecuted women who were either unmarried or had given birth to illegitimate children. The law was essentially a way to punish women for sexual immorality. Which seems to be the case here too. It was very seldom used to prosecute those who sold abortifacients or performed abortions, which is, we're told, the purpose of the laws currently.

I have been unable to find even a mention of any illegal abortion providers being prosecuted using a law designed for that purpose. (doesnt mean its not out there, sure. But I couldnt find even one)

Everything that I’ve been able to find on the subject says that women who commit feticide or neonaticide (killing a child within 24 hours of birth) are almost invariable young, single, financially in crisis and most often, women of colour.

Claudette Colvin (whom I used as my avatar for a while) was the first person arrested for resisting bus segregation. She was shunned by the NAACP because at the time she was pregnant and unmarried.

The practice was legal in europe for a long time, then prohibited by the church in the middle ages, the church being the greatest abortiuonist in europe, just dig a hole behind any monastery and you'll see what I mean.
Abortion rates started spiraling in the 18th century and abortion became illegal in many places (including the US I think) in the early 19th century. I can't speak for other countries as I can't read their penal code, but in france the sentence was 5 years, for both the one going through the abortion and the abortionist, the worse it's ever been. Considering the country was suffering from poor natality compared to enemy nations I find the maximum sentence quite reasonable.