Several folks earlier claimed the Utah DA had no legal basis to bring the charges he did…suggesting he doesn’t know the law of his own state.
I provided a link pointing out that “In January, the state Supreme Court ruled that unborn children at all stages of development are covered under the state’s criminal homicide statute. The law exempts the death of a fetus during an abortion.”.
Perhaps you don’t agree with the court’s ruling. Groovy.
Perhaps you think the law should be changed. Groovy.
It doesn’t really matter as pertains to my initial point that the DA was acting according to (I guess at least his understanding of) Utah law.
Not good, not good at all.
Erode the rght of a competent adult to preserve their autonomy in one situation, you do it in others.
Her body, her choice.
If she’s competent to make the decision, decision respected.
No exceptions, no exclusions.
Otherwise you’ll have siblings and parents forced to donate organs, terminally ill forced to have treatment and on and on and on.
Ok, fair enough,beagledave. Now, to try to articulate what I was saying better. The DA is prosecuting based on a FLAWED law, that goes against the constitution, and that will hopefully soon be stricken down. Therefore, it’s a matter of the “individual use” parameters on the definition of the word "legal. Does the person using it mean “according to current Utah law”, or “according to the Constitution”? I, personally meant according to the Constitution. Am I making more sense now?
And that’s based upon what evidence, exactly? This woman has two older children. There have been no reports that they are abused, neglected or otherwise not doing well in her care.
And though I (regrettably, now) injected the Pennsylvania case, let’s take care not to conflate the two issues. In Pennsylvania, there was one judge making a decision which was questionable. In Utah, the legislature passed a law which made it a criminal act of murder for a woman to act in a way which caused the death of her unborn child and the state Supreme Court has upheld it. It’s a far deeper infringement in Utah, and it’s got the weight of statute behind and the word of the highest court affirming it. That’s a lot of people who seemingly hold with the pregnant women as incubators perspective, and a huge mountain to scale for those who still hold to the idea of freedom. It’s amazing how far my fellow “conservatives” are willing to intrude upon personal liberties. Amazing in a disgusting, saddening way.
I want to know how did the ‘authorities’ get involved in this to begin with? I can see the hospital giving the woman all sorts of warnings and even getting her to sign things that indicated she knew the possible outcomes. The hospital was just covering their ass, not to difficult to understand in an age where malpractice suits are common. But at what point did the police and/or the DA get involved?
Reading through this thread, I’ve seen the barest mention that this woman went to several different places in search of a different solution.
That doesn’t strike me as someone who didn’t care what happened to her babies. It sounds more like someone who was afraid (for whatever reason) of the only option that had been given to her and was desperately seeking an alternative.
Here’s a copy of the police report used to file the charges. Perhaps it will help put things into perspective. None of the news stories I’ve read have mentioned the drug usage or her complete uncooperativeness. Also, many of them state that Hanna was delivered vaginally, but both babies were in fact delivered by C-section.
When I first heard of the case, I had some doubts as to the ethics of charging her with child endangerment. In light of the facts presented in the police report, I no longer have any. I personally feel that every expectant mother who exposes her unborn infant to cocaine should be charged with child endangerment, and feel that the surgery, while presented by the press as the main reason for the charges being filed, was in fact, secondary.
Oh yeah she was just a poor uninformed woman looking for “alternatives”.
Big mean hospital/doctor/nurse, treating her like an incubator and trying to save the babies and stuff…the outrage!
You can roll your eyes all you like but it doesn’t change the fact that it is seriously wrong (morally) to force someone to undertake a medical procedure. The circumstances are irrelevant.
You must remember that the natural course of events is for the mother to have a natural birth. A C-section is an intervention and the mother should have every right to refuse it.
From the AP story: “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.”
(bolding mine)
Whatever reason this woman had for refusing the C-section, she was NOT completely ignorant of what the procedure entails. She may indeed be mentally ill, but I find it difficult to believe that she willfully caused the death of her baby - because when she began suspected trouble around Christmas, she sought help.
I only know what I’ve read about this case, but there are other children who have been fostered out, and the surviving twin has been adopted. This murder charge was filed after this woman was already in jail for endangering the surviving infant. Why were murder charges filed now, three months after her delivery?
So… we’re supposed to feel like dupes for choosing to take the high road? Some of us made the wrong call. Bummer; it’s nicer to be right, but hey, we had to make some guesses, you can’t always score 100%.
We didn’t have full information, some posters chose to give her the benefit of the doubt until more info came in. Doing so gave all a chance to explore the issues raised by the case, issues which don’t go away even if it turns out the mom is an asshole.
So if we can stop cackling with glee for a minute here, gimme some guidance: am I supposed to feel bad because I’m not psychic, or am I supposed to feel bad because I’m some kind of Pollyanna?
WAG…well the woman DID visit three hospitals, several nurse, several doctors…plus drug screens…and then there is finding out the status of her current offspring.
Also…she is probably not an immediate threat to the rest of the citizens of the town…
Are we now criticizing the DA for taking time to check out all the facts?
I’m sorry but all morals are based on unprovable axioms. By definition all morals are opinions. That does not neccesarily mean you should’nt fight what you consider wrong. I think it’s wrong to claim your opinion is fact, and I am confronting you on this, for example. I am not disputing your post in any other way. I just have a pet peeve about people claiming there opinions to be fact.
