Woman charged with murder for refusing C-section

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by East Street Trader
Even after a child is born there are (in England and I suspect elsewhere) special rules which protect the mother from too rigorous a regime - until the baby reaches the age of one the killing of the child by the mother will be charged as infanticide not murder.

Only if the mens rea involved was held to be a direct result of the processes of birth or lactation- so post-natal depression would count.

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
2. As killing an unborn child at any age is murder, except for legal abortion- then taking birth control pills is murder. Because contrary to their name, they do not prevent conception. They allow conception, but prevent the "unborn child" "fertilized egg" from implanting on the uterine wall. Thereby "killing" it. And as birth control pills are not recognized as a legal abortion method, we have no choice but to charge the 70,000,000 people using, prescribing,, manufacturing or dispensing then with murder.

You've gone a bit over the top here I think! Birth control pills can do as you say but to state they don't stop conception itself is incorrect. They hinder the sperm from raching the ovum, and if I recall correctly make the egg harder for the sperm to penetrate.

Anyway, they would simply reclassify birth control pills as a form of abortion... although the most liberal groups oppose classifying birth control pills as such as they feel it has negative connurtations and may result in less people using it (Many of whom would have an abortion if they fell pregnant as a result anyway, d'oh!).

Plus for a charge of murder you need a body... I doubt even the most hardcore Christians would trawl through the sewers looking for fertilised eggs callously discarded to trace back to their murderous owners!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well now... this is gotten interesting:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/15/ca....ap/index.html

SALT LAKE CITY, Utah (AP) -- Prosecutors are investigating whether a woman charged with killing her baby by refusing a Caesarean section tried to scam a couple by offering to sell them the non-existent child for bail money, a newspaper reported.

Deputy Salt Lake County District Attorney Kent Morgan told the Deseret News his office was reviewing the allegations from a California couple who said they accepted collect telephone calls from Melissa Rowland from jail.

Rowland, 28, accused of refusing a C-section for her unborn twins because she feared scarring, has been jailed on criminal homicide and child endangerment charges. She has denied refusing a C-section.

In a jailhouse interview Friday with The Associated Press, Rowland said without prompting that she had not tried to sell the babies, but did not elaborate. The latest allegations apparently came after the interview.

One of the twins, a boy, was stillborn on January 13. A girl survived and has since been adopted, but prosecutors say she tested positive for cocaine and alcohol, which resulted in the child endangerment charges. She is scheduled to be in court Tuesday on that charge.

Monday, Rowland pleaded innocent to one count of criminal homicide. She appeared in court via video teleconference from jail, and her attorney entered the plea.

Brian Farley told the newspaper for Sunday's editions that the adoption agency he and his wife were using contacted them about possibly adopting Rowland's baby boy.

The Sacramento couple said Rowland offered to give them a boy if they paid her $5,000 bail. They were unaware that Rowland had already given birth to a stillborn baby boy and thought she was in jail only on child endangerment charges.

Under the assumption their attorney had checked Rowland's background, Farley said he and his wife agreed to accept collect telephone calls from the woman from jail. The calls began February 26 and ended March 2, he said.

Rowland's attorney has said she had a long history of mental illness.

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by Gibsie
You've gone a bit over the top here I think! Birth control pills can do as you say but to state they don't stop conception itself is incorrect. They hinder the sperm from raching the ovum, and if I recall correctly make the egg harder for the sperm to penetrate.

Combined hormone pills greatly reduce ovulation and therefore reduce conception; but they DO NOT STOP CONCEPTION. The effectiveness of the mucous changes in preventing sperm travel are debatable, but good P.R. In any case, the Progestin (sp?) makes it virtually impossible for a fertilized egg to implant in the uterine lining.

Hence, the new mini-pilss of Progestin only. They do not measurably reduce ovulation, nor stop conception. They simply make sure any fertilized egg does not implant.

Anyway, they would simply reclassify birth control pills as a form of abortion... although the most liberal groups oppose classifying birth control pills as such as they feel it has negative connurtations and may result in less people using it

Indeed.

Plus for a charge of murder you need a body... I doubt even the most hardcore Christians would trawl through the sewers looking for fertilised eggs callously discarded to trace back to their murderous owners!

Never underestimate the people involved. If they will charge a mentally ill woman for murder for not having a C-section when so advised...

[Sava]

this is absolutely retarded...

another dumb-assed prosecutor abusing his power....

oh wait... the government SHOULD force people to have medical procedures

this story gets a

[Q Classic]

so we've determined now that this woman has in the past beaten her children and scammed other people.

i'm glad her kids have been placed in better foster custody. she has no business raising them if she can't do it right.

[Sava]

agreed... this woman was a dope, but so are the people trying to accuse her of murder.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sava
agreed... this woman was a dope, but so are the people trying to accuse her of murder.

Imran's post indicates that she was mentally ill, not a dope. She needs to be put away or have a guardian appointed. She certainly is not competent to manage her own affairs and on her own she clearly is a danger to her own kids, including her unborn children.

[CharlesBHoff]

The DA of Salt Lake City chould be voted out of office than charge with fileing or threaden to file false legal charges and permant disbar from the practice of law and permant disbar from holding any electic or appoint government job for life.

[Ned]

I caught the tail end of a segment on the O'Reilly show last night talking about this topic. Apparently he too believes that the proper action would have been for the doctors to go to a court to seek guardianship; and it is the doctors they are to do so that makes them primarily at fault.

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by Ned
I caught the tail end of a segment on the O'Reilly show last night talking about this topic. Apparently he too believes that the proper action would have been for the doctors to go to a court to seek guardianship; and it is the doctors they are to do so that makes them primarily at fault.

Than good doctor doesnot want to operate on than person against they will as there is than higher change of then dieing on the table. Most surgin willnot operate on than person who believe they are going to die on the table 90 % of the time they do die on the table, if they can help it.