Woman charged with murder for refusing C-section

[The Mad Monk]

Drugs were involved.

The girl, who has been adopted, tested positive for cocaine and alcohol in her urine, according to court records. Rowland was charged with child endangerment on the basis of that test.

http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Mar/03132004/utah/147345.asp

[The Mad Monk]

Okay...I can't even say what's going through my mind right now...

Mother Of Stillborn Child Tried To Get Her Baby Adopted
Mar. 12, 2004

Voice of: Brian Farley: "FORTUNATELY, I WAS SMART ENOUGH TO RECOGNIZE THAT SHE'S PROBABLY PULLING A SCAM ON ME, BUT UNFORTUNATELY, MY HEART GOT INVOLVED IN THIS."

Brian Farley and his wife want to adopt a baby. They were hopeful, when they got a call from Melissa Rowland. He says she called him numerous times in the past 2 weeks, from the Salt Lake County Jail.

Voice of: Brian Farley: "SHE TOLD ME SHE WAS PREGNANT BUT SHE ALSO TOLD ME THAT SHE KNEW THE SEX WAS GOING TO BE A BOY AND SHE WAS ALREADY 2 DAYS LATE."

But what Farley didn't know, was Rowland wasn't pregnant. She had given birth to twins, one stillborn, in January. Yesterday, prosecutors charged her for the murder of the stillborn boy.

They say she rejected the advice of doctors at 3 different hospitals, who recommended a C-section to save the child. Farley heard the news, this morning.

Voice of: Brian Farley: "IT JUST SENDS CHILLS. MY WIFE IS IN CHILLS. WE'RE JUST SICK OVER THIS."

Farley says Rowland offered her child for adoption. In exchange, she asked him to get her out of jail.

Voice of: Brian Farley: "SHE BEGGED AND PLEADED FOR ME TO POST BOND FOR HER. SHE DIDN'T WANT TO BE AN INMATE WHEN SHE GAVE BIRTH."

Farley refused because he thought Rowland was a flight risk. Still, he says, he had hope.

Voice of: Brian Farley: "AND I SAID, 'ARE YOU WILLING TO SIGN ADOPTION PAPERS WITH ME? IF YOU ARE, I'LL GET ON A PLANE AND FLY TO SALT LAKE AND SIT IN THE HOSPITAL WITH YOU.' AND SHE GOES, 'ARE YOU WILLING TO BAIL ME OUT OF JAIL?' AND I SAID, 'NO.' AND SHE SAID, 'WELL, I GOT A FATHER IN FLORIDA. I'M TRYING TO WORK WITH HIM RIGHT NOW. LET ME GET BACK WITH YOU' AND THAT WAS THE LAST I EVER HEARD FROM HER."

Now Farley and his wife are heartbroken. He says, Rowland seemed desperate, but sincere.

Voice of: Brian Farley: "MY WIFE IS SO UPSET, IT'S UNBELIEVABLE. SHE'S IN TEARS AND I'M SHAKING MAD. IT'S JUST RIDICULOUS."

http://tv.ksl.com/index.php?nid=8&sid=80798

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Entirely consistent with the Defence statement that she has a long-term history of mental health problems?

[The Mad Monk]

I would agree with that, yes.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

If, as mentioned in that link, she's already had a C-section, then the assertion that she just wanted to avoid a scar looks decidedly wobbly. Much to the lynch-mob's chagrin, I hope. It also opens up interesting possibilities regarding the impact her earlier surgery had.

I don't think, for one moment, that this will go to a murder trial, but if it does I think you've got an interesting self-defence angle opening up.

[Ned]

The more I hear of this case, the more I want to see that woman convicted.

[Q Classic]

it may fit the definition of premeditated, but i don't exactly see concious malice.

i don't know if murder is the right charge, but at the very least, i'm glad her kids have been given to someone else. a nitwit like that breeding is a shameful thing for the whole human race.

i don't know about her genes, but obviously her intelligence and personality cannot be allowed to pass on to the next generation.

[The Templar]

You know what I really don't like about this case - its the slippery slope it goes down. Today, it's surgery or murder charges for the death of a fetus. Tomorrow what? Mom doesn't donate a kidney to her kid, the kid dies, and mom goes to jail?

It's one thing to impose a duty of getting medical care for kids when the kid is born, but a whole other to impose a duty of getting medical care for a fetus when that care is by nature invasive on the mother.

This is nothing more than another attempt by males to take control of women's bodies. (I am especially thinking of Ned and BK here.) Not satisfied with taking control of wombs, the patriarchs want the power to subject women to invasive surgery if they feel like it. This is nothing but naked aggression by the patriarchy against women.

[Gibsie]

IF this was decided to be murder, it'd be interesting (In the not good way) to see where this could go.

If you had a woman with carrying many babies, .e.g. Mandy Allwood who was carrying 8, and the doctors told her she must abort one or more of them in order to allow the rest to survive, could she be charged with murder if she REFUSED to have an abortion, and as a result all the babies died? After all, her refusal to have the surgical procedure would be the direct cause of at least one death there.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by The Templar
You know what I really don't like about this case - its the slippery slope it goes down. Today, it's surgery or murder charges for the death of a fetus.

Where's the fetus in this case?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
it may fit the definition of premeditated, but i don't exactly see concious malice.

i don't know if murder is the right charge, but at the very least, i'm glad her kids have been given to someone else. a nitwit like that breeding is a shameful thing for the whole human race.

i don't know about her genes, but obviously her intelligence and personality cannot be allowed to pass on to the next generation.

Check out my post on this on the preceding page. They have a special statute on this in Utah.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Where's the fetus in this case?

In the womb?

I'm not playing semantic games here. Replace 'fetus' with 'organism in human womb' if you really want a value neutral language.

Given that you have not adressed my substantive arguments, I take it you agree with them. (And you've waived your right to adress them at a later time according to the Apolyton Rules of OT Procedure.)

[DinoDoc]

We have rules for dealing with rants?

[Ned]

Originally posted by The Templar
You know what I really don't like about this case - its the slippery slope it goes down. Today, it's surgery or murder charges for the death of a fetus. Tomorrow what? Mom doesn't donate a kidney to her kid, the kid dies, and mom goes to jail?

It's one thing to impose a duty of getting medical care for kids when the kid is born, but a whole other to impose a duty of getting medical care for a fetus when that care is by nature invasive on the mother.

This is nothing more than another attempt by males to take control of women's bodies. (I am especially thinking of Ned and BK here.) Not satisfied with taking control of wombs, the patriarchs want the power to subject women to invasive surgery if they feel like it. This is nothing but naked aggression by the patriarchy against women.

Templar, I think you are addressing something different than the specific statute involved in this case. See my post on the previous page.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Gibsie
IF this was decided to be murder, it'd be interesting (In the not good way) to see where this could go.

If you had a woman with carrying many babies, .e.g. Mandy Allwood who was carrying 8, and the doctors told her she must abort one or more of them in order to allow the rest to survive, could she be charged with murder if she REFUSED to have an abortion, and as a result all the babies died? After all, her refusal to have the surgical procedure would be the direct cause of at least one death there.

Good point. I think this might be a legitimate defense to a charge of murder -- something like self defense.

[Ned]

Check out this related story:

Jan. 24, 2004

The Utah Supreme Court has upheld a state law that allows defendants charged with murdering a pregnant women also to be prosecuted for the death of a fetus at any stage of its development.
Friday's ruling puts Utah's fetal homicide law -- which has an exception for legal abortion -- on firm footing with similar statutes in at least 13 other states. About a dozen other states criminalize fetal homicide, but at various developmental stages later than conception.
Roger MacGuire, 50, now faces trial on two counts of capital murder for the 2001 slaying of his 38-year-old ex-wife. Susan MacGuire was 13 to 15 weeks pregnant when MacGuire allegedly fired two shots into her abdomen after ambushing her at the Layton insurance office where she worked.
Prosecutors say MacGuire snapped when he learned Susan MacGuire was pregnant by her new boyfriend and had plans to marry him.
Assistant Utah Attorney General Christopher Ballard, who represented the state in the appeal, said Friday's opinion in favor of the law upholds "the will of the people."
"In Utah, we believe that it's a crime to kill an unborn child unless you're the mother of that child, with a constitutional right to make that choice," he said. "But no one else has the right to make that choice for the mother, and that is what this ruling affirms."
MacGuire's appellate attorney, Scott Wiggins, could not be reached Friday. But Wiggins had argued the justices should declare the law unconstitutionally vague because it did not specify at what stage of development a fetus becomes an "unborn child," which is the only defining language for gestation in the statute.
Responding to MacGuire's appeal in 2002, lawmakers added the phrase "at any stage of development" to make clear that it applies from conception. But that change did not apply to MacGuire, and on Friday the justices ruled the law was clear even before the amendment.
"We conclude that the term 'unborn child' is not unconstitutionally vague because, absent modifying language to the contrary, it clearly encompasses a human being at any stage of development in utero," wrote Associate Chief Justice Matthew B. Durrant for the court Friday.
The high court went on to say because the term has a "straightforward definition," prosecutors are not left to speculate as to the statute's meaning.
Chief Justice Christine M. Durham agreed with the majority on the law's constitutionality. But she authored a dissent, pointing to another section in state code that makes it a capital offense to murder "two or more persons."
Durham argued that because a fetus, under Utah law, is not "a full legal 'person' " MacGuire should not be subject to the death penalty.
Justice Jill N. Parrish wrote a response to Durham, saying the term "person" must be read in context with the fetal homicide statute, which only refers to "unborn children."
Davis County Attorney Mel Wilson said prosecutors will proceed with MacGuire's case as soon as possible. MacGuire is being held in the Davis County Jail without bail.
"We felt like we were on solid ground in the first place and that we would prevail on the appeal, but it is a controversial issue and one that [is] being debated across the county," Wilson said Friday.
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act introduced last year in Congress is akin to Utah's statute. But, unlike in Utah, the federal bill does not provide for the prosecution of a woman for actions (other than abortion) while pregnant, such as drug use, that harms or kills her fetus.
Utah's fetal homicide law was first used in 1997 to charge Dayna Pittman with child abuse homicide for killing her unborn child through the use of methamphetamine. Pittman pleaded guilty to the charge. Since then, the statute has also been used against two women charged with child abuse for harming their unborn children with drugs.
Ballard said he does not think Friday's opinion could be considered a victory for either pro- or anti-abortion camps.
"I don't know that the opinion supports either side to the extent they would want it to," he said. "I think that regardless of your stance on abortion, either side of the abortion debate could use this opinion to further their case."
Still, Karrie Galloway, executive director of Planned Parenthood of Utah, said she can't help but question the intent of fetal homicide laws like Utah's.
"I just wonder if we're really addressing the justice system here, or if we are being political for those who are intent on reversing Roe. v. Wade," she said. "At least if you're looking at viability, that's one thing, but if we're going to infer personhood at any point of a pregnancy, we are really pushing the envelope."
Former state Sen. Steve Poulton, who sponsored the 2002 amendment, said he was pleased with Friday's opinion which he says should make people re-evaluate their own beliefs about abortion laws.
"I'm glad that the Supreme Court made the right call," he said. "I think people ought to realize the hypocrisy of saying let's prosecute someone for murder when they kill a fetus in a violent act to the mother, but it's OK to kill a fetus in a nonviolent act."

http://apolyton.net/forums/newreply....hreadid=110513

[Ned]

And this:

Utah fetal homicide statute is upheld

By Angie Welling
Deseret Morning News

In a landmark decision Friday, the Utah Supreme Court ruled that unborn children at all stages of development are covered under the state's criminal homicide statute.
The divided court rejected arguments that the law is unconstitutionally vague, ruling it "clearly encompasses a human being at any stage of development in utero."
Legal analysts do not believe the decision will have any impact on Utah abortion laws, as the homicide statute specifically exempts the death of an unborn child caused by an abortion.

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,590038349,00.html

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Ned
Templar, I think you are addressing something different than the specific statute involved in this case. See my post on the previous page.

I am aware of the statute, I'm talking about the overall attitude. The statute is just another in a long line of excuses to pack rights into fetuses. The thing is, the concern here really isn't about fetuses. Rights for fetuses is just a Trojan horse. The real agenda is continued male domination of women's bodies. The statute in this case is really just such a Trojan horse.

As George Carlin put it, you tell this from the behavior of the wingnuts who try to give rights to fetuses. I.e. actual dedication to fetuses on the part of a wingnut is directly proportional to the number of crack babies they have adopted.

But seriously, show me some evidence that the wingnuts and religious fanatics really care about anything other than preserving the patriarchy. Anything.

[The Templar]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ned
And this:

Utah fetal homicide statute is upheld

By Angie Welling
Deseret Morning News

In a landmark decision Friday, the Utah Supreme Court ruled that unborn children at all stages of development are covered under the state's criminal homicide statute.

Utah Supreme Court? This would be news only if they struck the law down.

The divided court rejected arguments that the law is unconstitutionally vague, ruling it "clearly encompasses a human being at any stage of development in utero."

I guess what I want to know is when the court thinks the organism in a womb becomes a human being? Blastocyst? Zygote? When?

Legal analysts do not believe the decision will have any impact on Utah abortion laws, as the homicide statute specifically exempts the death of an unborn child caused by an abortion.

OK, so the patriarchs are smart enough to erode women's rights slowly and gradually. Even the language of the statute making abortion an exception implies that it is wrong.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Drugs were involved.

Anyway, it seems that a child endangerment charge can be sustained even without refering to the surgery.

[Ned]

If a late term abortion is permitted only to protect the life or health of the mother, I say arrest everyone involved in a late term abortion and let them prove their case. As we all know, this "health" exception is a sham.

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by Ming
While I personally think the lady should be punished... the story says...


In the first paragraph... the doctor warned that the twins "probably" would die. Medicine isn't an exact science. The twins could have survived, and one did indeed survive.
There is also always a risk with surgery... So we are talking about percentages here. Granted, one could argue that the percentages say that she should have had the surgery... but it seems by the second paragraph that she is being charged because of comments made to a nurse.

Do I disagree with her choice... YES... But should people be forced to have surgery they don't want... NO!

If she had stated that she was afraid of having the surgery, and didn't want to take that risk... this probably wouldn't even be an issue.

Surgery no matter how minor or routine the operation can lead to death or you being than human vegetable(worst than Death). I have than bad liver from than illness which make any operation very riskly more people
die from the gas or drugs they use to put you under so that you donot feel then cutting you open. In man history in surgery the doctor in the ancient world where limited in what they could do due to than thing called body shock when they cut open the body of than person not put under that person die in 10 to 15 minutes later due to shock to the body.The normal risk of something goeing wrong with putting you under is 3 % with than bad liver 30% other medical problen like diable(cannot control blood sugar level) can make it worst.

[CharlesBHoff]

3% of the people put under so they can operate on then die from the gas or drug they use this is the normal people with no major health rick like bad liver. With than bad liver the change of dieing is 30 % or more when other factor are takeing in. So if I was than woman I can refuse the C-section on valid ground as it might endanger my life.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon


This is a special case. In this case your decision has massive implications for the lives of others, others who you are responsible for bringing into being.

For example, if you gave your friend some home brew and it wrecked his kidneys and he needed to be hooked up to another person for dialysis, then the state would be fully justified in compelling you to be that other person.

People who think we have absolute rights are dreamers and don't understand how rights really work.

w00t! commie-on-commie action!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
If a woman has a right to control her own body, then she has the right, for any reason, to elect not to undergo surgery.

But she doesn't have the right to control her own body, so it's a moot point

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by David Floyd
What? That's outrageous! If you intentionally poisoned him, you should be charged with that crime. But it is unreasonable to force people to use their bodies to help another person. That's slavery. I can easily imagine an 8th Amendment argument, as well.

Amendment XIII

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

[Az]

One doesn't have an absolute right to one's own body. I thought this was a known fact. Otherwise, any kind of prohibiton is "immoral"

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
However, she, carrying the children to full term, definetly assumed a duty to them. It's like the first person who responds to an accident. They then have a duty to take reasonable care to try to save the person's life (ie, they can't simply drive away). If she didn't want an abortion, the case can be made that she was duty-bound to take reasonable measures to make sure both lived.

I agree with that. I can't see "reasonable measures" include medical operations, however.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
In other news, she's saying that her two other children were both c-sectioned.

IIRC, a woman could only have 2 c-sections without significant risks to herself. If this is true, the persecution shouldn't have a leg to stand on.

[Tiamat]

Originally posted by monkspider
This woman denied one of her babies the chance to accept Jesus Christ as it's personal savior and as a result,her innocent child is now being tortured in the lowest bowels of hell by a legion of demons.

I say string her up!!

Obviously you're not a Christian because if you were then you would know that if a child dies before it reaches the age of accountability then it isn't held responsible for it's sins. A child who hasn't even had the chance to breath life hasn't had the chance to sin so it wouldn't burn in hell but move on to heaven.