Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Woman prosecuted after taking meth leads to still birth in mississippi

67 replies

cogitosum · 27/05/2013 09:10

Sorry if this has already been posted but couldn't see it anywhere. I know it's not in uk but I think it's a very scary prospect as could open doors to cases of women being prosecuted for smoking, drinking, eating wrong type of cheese etc in pregnancy if this ends in miscarriage

I had mmc last year and was looking for reasons to blame myself as I'm sure many women are. The idea that a court could do the same thing is horrifying.

Given some people's opinions on women smoking in pregnancy even on here this idea isn't so far fetched (incidentally I didn't smoke or drink in pregnancy and now 34 weeks but I'm sure I've broken some of the 'rules' and strongly believe that a woman's body is her own).

On phone so I'm not sure if link Will work sorry.

www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2013/05/23/mississippi-miscarriages-supreme-court_n_3327974.html

OP posts:
AThingInYourLife · 28/05/2013 08:12

You should be prosecuted for doing any of those things at any time, since you could be pregnant and not know it yet.

VinegarDrinker · 28/05/2013 08:20

Very true. I am but a walking uterus.

Shift work has been shown to have detrimental effects on pregnancy outcomes, too, so I had better quit my job or risk prosecution.

Dervel · 28/05/2013 08:35

Well actually she IS being prosecuted for manslaughter which sometimes is what vehicular homicide is plea bargained down to in some US states, so potentially yes it may well be the same technical crime she is prosecuted for as some drunk drivers are.

I would also imagine that they won't get anywhere with the actual prosecution unless they can conclusively prove that the taking of meth directly caused the death, which at this point they haven't. She is innocent until proven guilty. If however it is proven that by pumping her body full of illegal chemicals DID cause it then there is another slippery slope to be mindful of which is deliberately causing a stillbirth past the legal limit on abortions which surely comes under laws that already exist.

Unless that is what some people are wanting, an extension on the legal limit for abortions. In which case fair enough although I cannot meaningfully contribute to that debate as to hold my hands up I can only say I have absolutely no idea where that line should be precisely drawn, but I would like to hear any opinions on that.

I would like to point out nobody has the complete and total right to do with their bodies as they wish, no-one man nor woman has the legal right to commit suicide (moot point I know), nor do we have the right to pump illegal chemicals into our systems (which is what this woman did).

For the record seeing as this woman has completed a rehabilitation, and is working towards a degree my personal feelings on the case on its merits alone and ignoring the wider ramifications is that at worst she gets hit with a drug use charge, with a non-custodial sentence (if indeed any), and is allowed to get on with her life with the same respect and compassion that should be afforded to any human being.

In closing I am interested in this debate, but please don't misinterpret my statements as opinion, as I wouldn't use so strong a word to describe what I feel about things that touch upon pro-life vs pro-choice. I merely have a current perpective which I accept requires a vast amount more information and experience to give this topic the depth of thought it deserves. If I said anything that offends then I realise this is an emotive topic and I apologise.

VinegarDrinker · 28/05/2013 08:45

Could you address my questions by any chance? Do you think overweight or obese women who have stillbirths should be prosecuted? Or the other situations mentioned above?

scaevola · 28/05/2013 09:08

Most of the examples above are in US. This is a jurisdiction-specific issue.

In UK there is established law and previous cases which show there is no slippery slope here. It is an offence to terminate a pregnancy outside the terms of the Act, and also there is the (rarely used) offence of Child Destruction. The key thing here is intent. If you used a noxious substance or the first time ever when pg, then you could be tried to establish if your intent was to end the pg. But if you were already a user, whether the substance was illegal or not, then the intent is not there.

So whether drug user, cheese-lover, obese glutton, alcoholic, social drinker, smoker etc, you would no be prosecuted because intent could not be shown.

So no, one should not be prosecuted for having a stillbirth - and it would not occur in UK here where intent is what matters.

HairyLittleCarrot · 28/05/2013 10:45

[ m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-19621675]

this woman was jailed for 8 years for taking an abortion pill at term to induce labour. She claimed the baby was stillborn and the body was never found.

whilst I am appalled at what might have happened here, and by no means find this anything other than tragic, the crime she was convicted of was not of giving birth to, and then killing a full term, born baby.

If she gave birth to a live baby and subsequently killed it, and had she been found guilty of this, it would have been murder. I find the whole possibility of this as sickeningly horrendous as anyone else.

But in fact, the crime she was convicted for was swallowing a pill to deliberately induce labour in herself. A legal drug taken every day by others.

it is this concept I find so very hard to stomach. that beyond a certain point, a pregnant woman does not own her own body. She can be jailed for doing something to herself that other adults can legally do. I don't accept that there should exist a crime against one's own body. Others may commit a crime against me, but how can I commit a crime against myself? I believe one's right to do what one chooses with one's own body should be, as someone else put it, inviolate.

I don't have to approve or like whatever someone else does with their own body. I may hate that someone makes such dreadful decisions. but I don't believe the law should limit one's human right - even to suicide. The irony being that her punishment was worse for taking a pill to induce her own labour than if she had attempted and failed suicide. The law would have been kinder had she tried to take her own life rather than tried to control her own body.

pinkballetflats · 28/05/2013 13:07

Dangerous precedent. What irks me even more is that access to sexual health services is being whittled away for those who are disadvantaged in the US.

The country is becoming increasing anti-women - often Biblical arguments (based on cherry-picked and twisted excerpts from the Bible) are being argues as needing to be enshrined in law. It is rapidly becoming a fundamentalist religious dictatorship.

FloraFox · 28/05/2013 14:31

Hairy I don't see there's much difference between giving birth to a baby then killing it and killing the same age baby in utero. I don't think the comparison between pregnant and not-pregnant people is relevant because pregnancy is unlike any other human experience. Although as others have pointed out, there are other circumstances in which we lose our bodily autonomy. Sometimes these restrictions eg suicide exist to prevent abuse that may lead to people being coerced into suicide.

HairyLittleCarrot · 28/05/2013 14:39

I thought suicide was no longer illegal.

HairyLittleCarrot · 28/05/2013 14:41

...and the examples of losing bodily autonomy were not accurate?

FloraFox · 28/05/2013 14:46

I meant to say assisted suicide.

The point though is that there's no difference between killing a baby in utero or after birth if the baby is capable of independent life.

FreyaSnow · 28/05/2013 16:04

There are two groups that this is problematic for - users of illegal drugs and women. Society may not like it that people use illegal drugs, but that doesn't mean that we can make up evidence and not rely on the facts. Women who use illegal drugs do give birth to healthy babies. (They also often give birth to low birth weight babies with all the problems that ensue from that).

In this case, a woman who was a drug user had a still birth, but they do not have good evidence that the drug use was the cause of the still birth. Many women who have not taken drugs or participated in any kind of risky behaviour have still births and miscarriages. The woman who used drugs may have had a still birth even if she had not taken the drugs. Yes, meth is illegal, but the crime she would then be guilty of is possession of illegal drugs, although really there should be patient confidentiality so that addicts get treatment, and cases like this shouldn't be brought.

As for the contraceptive argument, women who use illegal drugs are not all incapable of bringing up children or or having healthy pregnancies, so it their choice if they decide to get pregnant or continue a pregnancy after not intending to conceive.

As for women as a group, it is not in anyway similar to killing of separate people in society. Everyone in society has a power to not make choices that harm others by our actions when we choose come into contact with them. That is part of our understanding of the autonomy of other people. We don't need to punch other pregnant women, feed them dangerous food or contaminated water, rent them houses with carbon monoxide problems etc. That is entirely separate to people making choices about their own bodies, and by extension people who have to make choices about a body they are sharing with a foetus. Sharing a body with somebody else is an incomparable situation to hitting or poisoning a pregnant woman or newborn baby you have the choice to walk away from and not interfere with. You don't have the choice to walk away from a foetus unless you are aborting it.

Unless somebody has such severe mental health problems that they are rendered delusional and are incapable of assessing risk, the risks a woman is prepared to put her and her foetus through together should be her choice. The question of whether or not this issue will lead to women being charged with manslaughter for being fat, for living in damp housing or for eating cheese is a serious one. I don't know exactly how risky it is to a pregnant woman and foetus to take various illegal drugs. The assumption that it is riskier than obesity, damp or consumption of various foods is a prejudice against drug users and a desire to deny them rights, which could have huge consequences for other groups of women that governments want to target. Drug use may or may not be riskier, but we need to see evidence of that. There has been some very prejudiced reporting in the media of obese pregnant women and the danger to their babies. I would see obese and overweight women as being vulnerable to these kind of manslaughter laws.

grumpyinthemorning · 29/05/2013 15:08

So where does it end? I miscarried after a heavy night of drinking when I was 4 weeks pg and didn't know, should I be prosecuted for killing that baby? She screwed up, but she's probably beating herself up about it already. The law has no right to make it worse, time in prison will only make it harder for her to get her life on track if/when she gets clean. What about her right to lead a normal life one day? Should we take that away from her because she was an addict?

A woman's rights over her body trump the "rights" of a bundle of cells that aren't even a human yet. Closer to the pro-choice/anti-abortion argument, but that's my tuppence.

WoTmania · 29/05/2013 21:51

Agree with FreyaSnow's post. Really can't add anymore as that post totally sums up my thoughts and feelings ont he matter

edam · 29/05/2013 22:33

Well said, Freya.

Flora, there is a crucial difference between killing another living person and ending a pregnancy. This case is even more extreme, because it's not even about choosing to end a pregnancy - it's about enduring a stillbirth that may or mayl not have had anything to do with drug use.

A pregnant woman is not a mere vessel. A blastocyst, an embryo, a foetus, has no independent existence. They have the potential to eventually achieve independent existence, but their existence in utero is entirely within the confines of the woman's body and entirely sustained by that woman's body. You cannot divide the two until the moment of birth.

Life with the full dignity of human rights begins at birth, not before. That's why you celebrate your birthday, not the anniversary of your conception.

Oddly enough, people who base their objections to abortion on religious grounds never deal with the fact that the vast majority of conceptions fail. Many within the first few days or weeks. If they are determined to blame someone for deaths in utero, they have to start with God.

CoalDustWoman · 29/05/2013 22:41

Fabulous posts above.

Thank goodness the thread was saved from the nonsense at the start with the meths /methadone /meth confusion.

Personhood laws will not stop at addicts. Because the laws will not be drafted in order to do so. Deliberately.

Will men who impregnate a woman who they know is on drugs be prosecuted?

FloraFox · 30/05/2013 00:36

edam I'm not sure if you intended to come across as condescending as you did. I made a point about intentional killing of a baby or a foetus of the same age ie full term. Your point seems to be about this case (ie unintentional) or abortion in general. Unless you would apply all of what you said to abortion at 40 weeks?

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread