Indiana imprisons a woman for 41 years for a crime they didn't prove.

[PuffinsAreFictitious]

www.politicalresearch.org/2015/03/29/how-indiana-is-making-it-possible-to-jail-women-for-having-abortions/#

rhrealitycheck.org/article/2015/03/30/purvi-patel-sentenced-41-years-feticide-neglect-dependent/

This is just horrendous. The prosecution's own experts couldn't show that she had taken any of the medication, nor that the miscarriage had been expelled alive.

That is horrendous. Is anyone taking up her case?

This seems a rather trivial comment but I'm very impressed by the standards of journalism on Reality Check.

No idea, but a poor, brown skinned woman in the US doesn't have a lot of options, sadly. Even fewer than here in the UK.

Oh my god, i hope she wins her appeal.

That is just awful. I hope she can get it overturned.

dear god that is insanity upon insanity. that poor woman.

Extremely worrying, all of this.

Oh, mepoff, mepoff.

Reported.

Was it a jury trial?

I think it was a jury trial.

Checked the article. It was a jury trial.

Indiana is such a backward state. I saw an article yesterday on another forum saying that shops were allowed to hang up signs saying no gays allowed

Yes, Indiana has just passed into law a religious freedom bill, which effectively means that business owners are under no obligation to serve people their religion decrees are anathema. So, gay people, black people, people of other religions and atheists.

In a state that passes that kind of bill, there's going to be a lot of a certain type of Christian who are very scared of women. Hence the need to control women's reproductive lives. I imagine it was pretty easy to find 12 "good men and true" who, despite the evidence, were only too happy to find the woman guilty. Gotta teach those women a lesson.

I might, however, be being slightly cynical.

"The prosecution's own experts couldn't show that she had taken any of the medication,"

www.wndu.com/home/headlines/Text-messages-to-be-used-in-Granger-womans-child-neglect-trial-289848011.html

She ordered abortion pills and then texted her friend

"These pills taste like shit" "if these don’t work after tasting so nasty, I’m going to be mad."

She received a six-year sentence for this (basically the same as our 'attempting to procure an abortion' law). That seems clear enough.

She also received a 20-year sentence (to run concurrently - not 41, as per the OP) for dumping the (prosecution claims) live-born baby in one of the r. Under Indiana law she will serve at least 50%, so 10 years.

Obviously the greater part of the sentence hinges on whether the baby was alive when born. This was the opinion of the forensic pathologist, based on the presence of oxygen in the baby's lungs. Patel claimed this was because she herself attempted to resuscitate.

"a poor, brown skinned woman "

She was not poor. In fact she was an "educated woman of considerable means". She drove a $40,000 SUV, and she owned (still owns?) a restaurant with hoer brother, which she opened in 2007.

www.southbendtribune.com/moe-s-offers-fresh-casual-dining/article_725cbde0-ef23-11e2-a4ee-001a4bcf6878.html

The abortifacient drugs they found no trace of in her system you mean?

Thanks for proving the point though Aga

"The abortifacient drugs they found no trace of in her system you mean?"

If they had claimed that, that would make the prosecution's case look more dubious, not less.

www.womenonwaves.org/it/media/inline/2014/4/9/claims_of_misoprostol_in_blood_1.pdf

You might as well say there's no trace of the glass of wine I had last Sunday in my system. It doesn't mean I didn't have one.

There were emails, texts and internet records showing that she searched for, ordered and took abortion drugs, contrary to the law of the US, the UK, and pretty much anywhere else.

This is a stark demonstration on how our opinions can be swayed by emotive language and omission.

Thankyou AgaPanthers for the extra information.

I suppose the context here is that Indiana has form for imprisoning women for pretty dodgy reasons relating to reproduction.

So if this story was in the UK, people would say "there must be more to it" because our laws allow for fairly reliable access to abortion.

In some states in the US, women are being charged / prosecuted / imprisoned for really spurious reasons, against the backdrop of legislation making abortion so hard to access it might as well be illegal.

So when people read this story they think "fucking hell another awful story" not "hmm it seems unlikely that would happen there" IYSWIM.

FWIW a person in the UK doesn't get 6 years for procuring a legal abortion, was this woman able to procure a legal abortion? If not and she bought the drugs to do it herself, then that is different to someone who has easy access to abortion. As I understand it, the law on illegal procurement of abortion in the UK are generally used to prosecute people for administering things to pregnant women without their knowledge (AFAIK these are the cases I've read in the paper).

FWIW reading the link Aga provided she doesn't sound like she was at all well. I can't find how old the foetus was anywhere either, surely if they found it then they will have been able to say how old it is? Whether it was 8 weeks or 28 weeks or 38 weeks has a bearing here.

Anyway. That's what I think

Here is an article in the independent which might be more agenda-free in either direction.

Not read it yet mind!

"Patel maintained that the foetus was stillborn but the prosecution argued that she gave birth to a live foetus that died within a few seconds. "I assumed because the baby was dead there was nothing to do," the South Bend Tribune quoted her as saying during a police interview. “I've never been in this situation. I've never been pregnant before.”"

To me that doesn't make much difference

If it was born dead or died a few seconds later, in neither case did she murder it, or allow it to die through neglect.

FWIW a person in the UK doesn't get 6 years for procuring a legal abortion,

No probably not, but nothing done in the UK is likely to carry the same punitive sentence as it would in the US. Using abortion pills is illegal in the UK. Indeed everything she did would be equally illegal but would not carry such a long sentence.

I thought that they did prescribe drugs for abortions these days?

I'm sure I saw a thread about it on here.

NHS choices says they do do it, it's called a "medical abortion".

"Early medical abortion (up to nine weeks of pregnancy)
An early medical abortion involves taking two different medicines 36-48 hours apart. The effect of the medication will be similar to having an early natural miscarriage – this means you will have some bleeding and some pain when the abortion happens."

If both sides agreed that the foetus was no more than 25 weeks, surely there is a high chance it would have died (if it was born alive) even if born in a hospital? And certainly even more likely if born anywhere else?

So I mean context is everything isn't it.

In the context of what has gone on in some states, and the actions of the anti-abortion crew, the idea they would send a woman to prison for murdering a baby on little to no evidence, or simply to punish her on ideological grounds (using laws in ways they are not intended to keep women in line) doesn't seem at all unlikely.