On March 30, 2015, a 33-year-old Indiana resident named Purvi Patel was sentenced to 20 consecutive years in prison. She is the first woman in the U.S. to be convicted and sentenced on “feticide” charges for ending her own pregnancy.
Patel
says she had a miscarriage. When she arrived, bleeding, at a hospital
near South Bend, her doctor called the police on her. The state of
Indiana charged her with both feticide for allegedly inducing an
abortion, and child neglect for allegedly having a premature baby and
then allowing the baby to die — an inconsistent and contradictory set of
charges.
On May 23,
Ms. Patel’s case comes up for an appeal. And all of us who care about
reproductive rights had better be paying attention, because this case is
particularly significant. Farah Diaz-Tello, senior staff attorney at
National Advocates for Pregnant Women, told Salon that if the state of
Indiana permits Ms. Patel’s prosecution to stand it will change the way
women can be prosecuted: “The state has used laws that were never
intended to punish pregnant people for losing or ending a pregnancy, and
now unless the appellate court steps in, anyone who self-induces an
abortion at any stage (which is becoming increasingly common as abortion
clinics vanish) could be charged with feticide.” Permitting a person to
be charged based on the outcome of the pregnancy could mean requiring
people to prove that a miscarriage or a stillbirth was unintentional.
This is a terribly slippery slope.
It
was Dr. Kelly McGuire who was on call when Patel came to the emergency
room of St. Joseph’s Regional Medical Center. Dr. McGuire is listed as pro-life through
his affiliation with American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and
Gynecologists. Not only did he call the police, he accompanied them in
the search for Ms. Patel’s stillborn fetus. He is the one who proclaimed
that it had been a live birth. Later, during the trial, Shaku Teas, the
pathologist who testified for the defense, determined
that the baby was stillborn, telling the court that the fetus’ lungs
weren’t developed enough to breathe. But the pathologist for the
prosecution, Joseph Prahlow, testified that the fetus was born alive.
News reports from the trial described Prahlow’s use of the “lung float test” to make this determination. Yet this 17th century test is widely discredited.
“The
lung float test was disproven over 100 years ago as an indicator for
live birth,” Gregory J. Davis, assistant state medical examiner for
Kentucky and a professor of pathology and lab medicine at the University
of Kentucky, told the New York Times. “It’s just not valid.”
This
question of the whether Dr. McGuire was influenced by his own
prejudices is crucial. Miriam Yeung, Executive Director of the National
Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum, says that knowing what happened to
Ms. Patel may cause other women experiencing a miscarriage to fear
going to the hospital for care, particularly if they are immigrants.
“Immigrant
women already face barriers in accessing healthcare,” Yeung told Salon.
“Unfortunately the actions of this doctor have created further
misinformation for immigrant women, particularly pregnant women of
color, who may now be more hesitant to access emergency healthcare.”
It is this very group of women, women of color, who have a good reason to worry about this potential precedent. A 2013 study done
by National Advocates for Pregnant Women found that significant numbers
of women — especially Black women — were turned over to authorities by
“helping professionals” in a confidential relationship with the patient
(e.g. doctors, nurses, etc). Diaz-Tello says that how we deal with this
issue will determine whether we become a country that will incarcerate
people for having abortions.
“When Donald Trump said pregnant
people should face some kind of criminal penalty for having abortions,
people were falling over themselves to distance themselves from that
opinion,” Diaz-Tello said. “Well, here’s a case where that is precisely
what happened.”
Both the March for Life and the National Right to Life Committee
released statements in the wake of Donald Trump’s appalling remarks
saying hat they didn’t believe that women who seek abortions should be
punished. Neither of those organizations have issued a statement on Ms.
Patel’s case. Neither responded to my inquiry as to why not, or whether
they were planning to.
The sacred space between doctor and
patient has become fair game for anti-choice advocates who seek any and
all legislation that will make it harder to get a safe abortion.
Of course, it’s not just the pregnant women who should be worried. Last Tuesday, the state of Oklahoma passed a bill
that would revoke the medical license from a doctor who performed an
abortion for any reason than to save the mother’s life. It would then
send them to prison for up to three years. Senate Bill 1552
defines abortion as “unprofessional conduct” on par with writing false
prescriptions and having sex with patients. SB 1552 provides no
exceptions for doctors that perform abortions in the case of rape or
incest.
In a few short weeks, when Ms. Patel’s appeal is heard,
advocates hope that the charges will be overturned and she will be
freed. Diaz-Tello says the ramifications are far reaching.
“No
matter how far along she actually was in pregnancy, or whether the pills
she was alleged to have taken had anything to do with the outcome of
the pregnancy,” said Diaz-Tello, “to permit criminal charges based on a
pregnancy outcome has huge ramifications for everyone who can become
pregnant.”
Miriam Yeung, meanwhile, lays out a terrifying scenario:
“This
could mean prosecution could be brought for any action or inaction by a
pregnant person, whether for a self-induced abortion, an accidental
fall down the stairs, or a miscarriage. They all may all lead to
criminalizing pregnancy.”
“I’m gonna build A GIANT WALL on the border between Mexico and America, this will of course be insurmountable, i am a genius,” says Donald Trump, a man who besides being an asshole is apparently unaware of the fact that tunnels exist
may I mention again that THERE IS ALREADY A WALL also we aren’t allowed to take pictures of it like what kind of iron curtain bullshit is this
#holy shit that’s creepy #I had no idea #I mean #I knew there was a wall in sections #but no taking pictures?
I mean, I assume you could take long-distance photos, but the border crossing I’ve been through and the wall near it are all posted about with NO PHOTOS, WE WILL CONFISCATE YOUR CAMERA OR PHONE signs. I figure it’s officially for ~security~ and preventing people from making Attacks (there are also darkly hilarious amounts of like U-turns and concrete barriers to snake through on your way through the border crossing, especially in the Mexico-to-US direction), but it… really just gives me that Iron Curtain vibe. I haven’t been to Canada since before 9/11, is that… normal now? what are the Canada border crossings like?
(to paraphrase that jedistormpilot post, what is the normal amount of barbed wire to have at an international border? ;P)
I can’t remember about specific signs at the Peace Arch crossing in Blaine, which is the big one here, but if you go to the one straight up Guide-Meridian from Bellingham the crossing is like, a normal road with a little shack next to it.
Before 9/11, we once hit the Blaine crossing heading into Canada at 4 am. All the booths were closed and there was a line of traffic cones guiding cars over next to the office. We slowed down – didn’t even come to a stop – and a hand stuck out the door, gave us a thumbs-up sign, and waved us through.
…which is honestly how all border crossings should be. :)
GO OFF SIS ????????????????????????????????Read it and then read it again.
“The Most Disrespected Person in America is the Black woman.“?????????????
And yall wonder why black women are angry.
This is why respectability politics, mean nothing. Michelle followed the respectability politics yall laid out for us to a Tee (be educated, be a “good” mother, be a supportive wife, dress modestly, always have your hair done, set a good example, respect yourself first), and the world STILL shames and disrespects her like this.
But keep telling us how the problem is that we wear weave. Keep telling us how the problem is that we act like hoes. Keep telling us that the problem is we don’t “respect” ourselves. Keep telling us that the problem is we’re too strong, we don’t know how to follow behind our man. Keep telling us that the problem is how we carry ourselves instead of just admiting that this world hates black women regardless of what we do.
What do you think of Hillary supporting things when those things start to become popular (i.e. gay marriage)? Isn’t that the least bit suspicious? Isn’t that just a little bit of an indicator that she’s just trying to gain power and will say anything to get it?
It’s hard to remember this (thankfully) but ten years ago it was impossible to get elected to a highly contested political office while supporting gay marriage. Hillary’s statement in 2000 that marriage was between a man and a woman, but people in committed same-sex relationships should be given the same rights as a married couple was a politically dangerous compromise in the year 2000. Indeed, this was the exact same compromise that Bernie Sanders helped usher in in Vermont that same year.
People get so damned pissed at Hillary…picking apart every bit of her record to confirm the existing bias that she’s a conspiratorial, power-hungry nut job. It’s terrifying to me, because she’s likely to be the nominee, and we seem really predisposed to distrusting her.
I don’t really understand people who get up in a politician’s face for being at the mercy of public opinion. It is literally their job to enforce the will of the people, that’s why this is a democracy. I would much rather have a person lead this country who is willing to change their mind than one who has always believed and will always believe the same thing. Or worse, someone who knows without a doubt that they are always right and have somehow never been wrong.
Bernie has been a much more stalwart supporter of LGBT rights than Hillary, and his vote against the “Defense of Marriage Act” was politically dangerous and courageous. But he also had the freedom of representing a small, homogenous, progressive state.
I remember the dumb arguments we made to ourselves that gay marriage wasn’t a big deal. I remember accepting those arguments myself. And I remember it being an litmus test that conservatives were using to weed out progressives and further their totally unrelated agendas. It sucked, but it happened…and we have to remember that before around 2006, a very strong majority of Americans opposed gay marriage.
It seems impossible now to be a conscious human and be opposed to marriage equality, but that was not the case 20 years ago. We sucked, and we shouldn’t forget it or give people a pass…but Hillary was ahead of the curve on this issue…just not as ahead as Bernie was.
Hank is spot on in his comments above. Except that not all Americans sucked. Only some of us did. And those of us who sucked, sucked on some things but not others. And more importantly, the majority of us who did suck, over time, we started sucking less.
That’s what’s so fascinating about political change in a democracy. The hard work isn’t in serving the people who are already not sucky – it’s in bringing along the people who, at the moment, are.
It is quite possible that America’s current acceptance of the right to marriage and the right to health care wouldn’t exist without the work of the Clinton Administration in the 1990s.
If Hillary Clinton doesn’t campaign for universal health care when no one – not even the Clinton’s own party – would unite on the issue, then America doesn’t acknowledge its soaring costs and decaying coverage as more than an economic issue and consider health care as a human right.
While it would have been better to have both issues resolved twenty years ago, getting a large percentage of the country to change their minds was a huge step toward sucking less.
Reminder: politicians aren’t characters in a scripted drama. And yet we seem to always treat them as such.
Actually, come to think of it, isn’t that how too many people treat all others.
to go back to the 11yo rather than my coffee problem
he is really such an awesome kid
like somehow he is never embarrassed
not by things that even his 6yo little brother has internalized as too girly for boys
or things that he might be “too old for” (he still has his plush animal collection and sees nothing wrong with that … like I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that, but you know. 11yo boy + society.)
or by things the average 11yo might know so expressing ignorance would get you teased at school kind of stuff, yk?
I mean, he just comes right out with things I never would have had the nerve to admit or express by the time I was, like, six
(I remember being blindingly embarrassed by a perfectly innocuous little kid conversation at about five, honestly. it’s a terrible memory, especially because it is both STILL EMBARRASSING and also it makes me feel stupid because there is NO REASON for the embarrassing in the first place, much less the third or fourth or fiftieth)
I mean
I’m 99% sure this is just how he’s wired
because I am so easily embarrased by, like, breathing in public where someone could see me so it seems unlikely I could have instilled the opposite in someone
but I am just so proud of him
and I hope I don’t screw it up for him with my own neuroses
