Privileged sociopath Elizabeth Holmes is pregnant, delaying her trial? WTF?

Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes is pregnant, likely delaying her fraud trial.

I’m putting this in the Pit because I really don’t know what to make of this, and if you want to excoriate me on feminist grounds of some sort, my mind is open and I’ll listen and possibly change my thoughts. But my first thought is, fuck her. (I know, someone already did, apparently.)

If dad is in the picture, the baby can be his responsibility and she can damn well go through her trial and be treated exactly as any person would be. If dad is not in the picture (or if dad is whatsisname, her ex-boyfriend/co-conspirator who is also indicted), find that kid a legal guardian and completely strip her of any rights to the child.

Exercising the capacity of your ovaries should not be a way to get out of the punishment she so richly deserves.

(I do think the child should have a right to know about his/her parents, though. I would support visitation rights on the child’s behalf - not hers - as long as the situation was handled with the child’s best interests in mind.)

As far as I can tell, it’s already been delayed for quite a few months due to COVID and it appears that this will simply push it back by a month and a half. I acknowledge that it sounds bad, but if getting pregnant only delays the inevitable by 1.5 months, I don’t expect a huge surge in criminal pregnancies.

Seeing as she’s a fraudster, do we actually know she’s really pregnant, and not just faking? That would be my concern.

Given how long these things take anyways, a month or two delay doesn’t bother me much. And if you’re having a baby, you can’t very well also sitting in trial.

But the timing seems suspicious, and this woman is a con artist. And fake pregnancies are a thing that happen–you just pretend to miscarry later on. Heck, she’s already falsified medical stuff, which would be exactly what you’d need to fake a pregnancy.

Yeah, I think that’s kind of what annoys me about this. She’s already gotten a free pass due to circumstances. If not for Covid she’d have been convicted already.

From the article

We hold parents to a much lower standard than criminals.

If she’s due in July as claimed by her lawyers, that means she should be around four months and starting to show soon if not already. Seems like it would be a very stupid thing to try and falsely assert considering how little time it is buying her. I also assume, maybe wrongly, that any judge worth a shit would demand a medical report as proof.

Then again she genuinely seems to live in her own bizarro reality, so I guess nothing would surprise me.

I expect it to be a difficult pregnancy and delivery and she will not be well enough to stand trial for quite some time. She is also likely to suffer from severe post-partum depression, severe enough to make her mentally unfit to stand trial. If she recovers from that it will simply expose her pre-existing mental defect making her not responsible for the frauds she committed.

So you see, this pregnancy is hardly worth mentioning.

That’s pretty much exactly how I felt about it. If delaying a month and a half means you avoid the drama and disruption of her going into labor in the middle of the trial (or more likely, pretending that she’s in labor then declaring a “false alarm” afterward) it’s worth it.

Generally though, this seems like a non-story. The delay I mean, not her crime and upcoming trial.

Yeah, seems the problem isn’t so much her being pregnant as her due date overlapping with the start of the trial. Having the defendant go into labor and give birth in the court room might possibly affect a jury and is certainly disruptive.

It’s not like she doesn’t have prior experience padding test results.

I’m not going to excoriate you on feminist grounds. Taking someone’s child away as punishment is just inhuman in general. I have no idea why you felt the need to include that as part of the “don’t delay the trial” rant, but it does not reflect well on you.

All the more heartbreaking is the fact that she will reveal that she was forced to have this child by surrogate, so hopefully that should certainly move even the most hardened jurist to leniance and understanding.

Is it permissable to hold someone responsible for their crimes if they have a child that lives with them under their care?

Well, good thing that’s not what’s actually happening here, isn’t it?

I was responding to the OP’s expressed wish, not to anything that’s actually going to happen. But thank you for participating.

Nothing I wrote indicates I believe anything else, Bucko.

I don’t know who I was trying to insult two years ago when I compared her to Ivanka but I still think it works both ways. Like we say in Spain: tanto monta, monta tanto. One is as bad as the other, may they both have a long spell in jail.

The privileged part is what gets me. No knocked up crack ho gets a delay.

The scheduled trial date is July 13, according to the article. Her due date is sometime in July. No-one wants to run a trial that would get interrupted by the accused having to go off to hospital and possibly need bed rest or home care afterwards. Undue trial delays in the middle of a trial can result in mistrials, with all the work thrown away.

There’s also the impact on the child. Newborns need bonding time with their mother. It’s important for their development. You don’t punish the child because their mother is facing criminal charges.

And the state can’t take a child away from a parent because the parent is facing criminal charges, or even if the parent is convicted.

A single droplet of blood was enough to confirm pregnancy.