• DPMC Moderators: thegreenhand | tryptakid
  • Drug Policy & Media Coverage Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Drug Busts Megathread Video Megathread

Mississippi Could Soon Jail Women for Stillbirths, Miscarriages

23536

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Dec 16, 2010
Messages
7,725
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/05/buckhalter-mississippi-stillbirth-manslaughter

On March 14, 2009, 31 weeks into her pregnancy, Nina Buckhalter gave birth to a stillborn baby girl. She named the child Hayley Jade. Two months later, a grand jury in Lamar County, Mississippi, indicted Buckhalter for manslaughter, claiming that the then-29-year-old woman "did willfully, unlawfully, feloniously, kill Hayley Jade Buckhalter, a human being, by culpable negligence."

The district attorney argued that methamphetamine detected in Buckhalter's system caused Hayley Jade's death. The state Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments on the case on April 2, is expected to rule soon on whether the prosecution can move forward.

If prosecutors prevail in this case, the state would be setting a "dangerous precedent" that "unintentional pregnancy loss can be treated as a form of homicide," says Farah Diaz-Tello, a staff attorney with National Advocates for Pregnant Women, a nonprofit legal organization that has joined with Robert McDuff, a Mississippi civil rights lawyer, to defend Buckhalter. If Buckhalter's case goes forward, NAPW fears it could spur a wave of similar prosecutions in Mississippi and other states.

Mississippi's manslaughter laws were not intended to apply in cases of stillbirths and miscarriages. Four times between 1998 through 2002, Mississippi lawmakers rejected proposals that would have set specific penalties for damaging a fetus by using illegal drugs during pregnancy. But Mississippi prosecutors say that two other state laws allow them to charge Buckhalter. One defines of manslaughter as the "killing of a human being, by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another"; another includes "an unborn child at every stage of gestation from conception until live birth" in the state's definition of human beings.

The cause of any given miscarriage or stillbirth is difficult to determine, and many experts believe there is no conclusive evidence that exposure to drugs in utero can cause a miscarriage or stillbirth. Because of this, prosecuting Buckhalter opens the door to investigating and prosecuting women for any number of other potential causes of a miscarriage or stillbirth, her lawyers argued in a filing to the state Supreme Court—"smoking, drinking alcohol, using drugs, exercising against doctor's orders, or failing to follow advice regarding conditions such as obesity or hypertension." Supreme Court Justice Leslie D. King also raised this question in the oral arguments last month: "Doctors say women should avoid herbal tea, things like unpasteurized cheese, lunch meats. Exactly what are the boundaries?"

Laws that criminalize hurting or killing fetuses are pitched as ways to protect pregnant women from abuse but are often used to prosecute those same women, NAPW says. The group has documented more than 400 cases across the country in which these laws have been used to detain or jail pregnant women. Earlier this year, Mississippi's neighbor to the east, Alabama, set its own precedent for prosecuting pregnant women for drug use. In January, the Alabama Supreme Court upheld convictions against two women—Amanda Kimbrough and Hope Ankrom—for "chemical endangerment" of a child, under a 2006 law that was written to punish people who expose children—not fetuses—to illegal drugs. Kimbrough gave birth prematurely to a baby boy who died shortly thereafter; she was charged after testing positive for meth. Ankrom gave birth to a healthy baby boy, but she was charged after he was found to have marijuana and cocaine in his system.

In Mississippi, Diaz-Tello says, "we're trying to avoid another ruling like Alabama." The decision in Buckhalter's case is expected to influence a second pending case in the state against Rennie Gibbs, a young woman charged with "depraved heart murder" after a experiencing a stillbirth in 2006, at age 16. A medical examiner claimed a small amount of cocaine, found during the autopsy, caused the death. Gibbs' case is supposed to go before a trial court later this year.

Buckhalter's lawyers contend that both Buckhalter and Gibbs are collateral damage in the abortion wars in Mississippi, one of the most anti-abortion states in the country. A 2011 state ballot measure there would have granted full rights to fertilized eggs, making all abortions illegal all the time. That measure failed, but abortion foes have pledged to try again in 2015, and lawmakers are working hard to close the state's last remaining abortion clinic. Charging a woman with manslaughter for using drugs while pregnant is just a backdoor way of establishing legal "personhood" for fetuses, says Diaz-Tello.

cont. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/05/buckhalter-mississippi-stillbirth-manslaughter
 
Calling a fetus a human being is a real stretch of the imagination.
Can we call an apple seed "an apple"?
Can we call dough "bread"?

Charging the mother with manslaughter, therefore, doesn't make too much sense.
However, I do believe that she should be held responsible if her selfish decision to take drugs while pregnant killed her fetus.
(Fetus-slaughter might be more appropriate.)
 
However, I do believe that she should be held responsible if her selfish decision to take drugs while pregnant killed her fetus.

Would you apply the same standard to tobacco or alcohol? What about women who exercise against doctors' orders? Women who eat lunch meat or unpasteurized cheese, or drink herbal tea? Women who don't adequately manage their hypertension or diabetes?

(I'm getting these examples from the article)
 
^ All good questions.
I think it has to be defined in terms of "common sense", though this is of course terribly hard to define!
It is common sense that using recreational drugs is bad for a fetus.
It is common sense that Meth is one of the more dangerous recreational drugs.
etc. etc.
(pressed for time now, but I hope to respond further later)
 
^ All good questions.
I think it has to be defined in terms of "common sense", though this is of course terribly hard to define!
It is common sense that using recreational drugs is bad for a fetus.
It is common sense that Meth is one of the more dangerous recreational drugs.
etc. etc.
(pressed for time now, but I hope to respond further later)
It might be common sense but that doesn't mean it's true.
 
It might be common sense but that doesn't mean it's true.

Exactly, is there any actual evidence that methamphetamine use by the mother can harm a foetus? Aren't we just now hearing about how the whole "crack baby" thing was baseless hysteria?
 
God im so ready to leave the south shit is gettong crazy here.
 
they shouldn't be charged with manslaughter but criminal negligence or something like it if they use drugs during pregnancy

including tobacco and alcohol
 
Charging the mother with manslaughter, therefore, doesn't make too much sense.
However, I do believe that she should be held responsible if her selfish decision to take drugs while pregnant killed her fetus.
(Fetus-slaughter might be more appropriate.)

they shouldn't be charged with manslaughter but criminal negligence or something like it if they use drugs during pregnancy

including tobacco and alcohol

You are both pro-life, then?
 
and if the baby was born dead because of some natural reason will they charge her with second degree murder ?
 
You are both pro-life, then?

I am pro-life in the sense that I support life.
I am not pro-government-deciding-for-women-whether-abortion-should-be-legal.
It doesn't follow from this that women can choose not to abort but can act with a complete lack of responsibility and take meth while pregnant.
Deciding to abort the fetus early in the pregnancy is one thing.
Deciding to keep it but accidentally killing it is another. That sounds like it should be something like criminal negligence to me.
 
Deciding to abort the fetus early in the pregnancy is one thing.
Deciding to keep it but accidentally killing it is another. That sounds like it should be something like criminal negligence to me.

That seems completely absurd to me. Either a foetus is a human and should have rights, or it is not. But you're saying an intentional abortion is completely fine, but an accidental abortion is criminal. I guess the defendant should just claim that she meant to kill the baby through her drug use, and that would be okay?
 
There's no doubting that a fetus is a human. The important question is: is a fetus a person? "Human" is a biological term; "person" is strictly conceptual.
 
Legally, accidental crimes are treated more leniently than deliberate crimes because of criminal intent. If you believe that the killing of a fetus is a crime in ANY form, how can you turn that upside down and decide that the accidental (and much more difficult to prove cause conclusively) killing of a fetus deserves legal punishment but the deliberate killing of a fetus is legally protected? You can't have it both ways.

If you think abortion should be legal you really can't defend the position of legal punishment for those that let their unborn children die through negligence. The position is inarguable without double-think.

I'm sure some will find it relevant even though I don't: I'm pro-choice.
 
There's no doubting that a fetus is a human. The important question is: is a fetus a person? "Human" is a biological term; "person" is strictly conceptual.

Yeah, I meant human in the legal sense, as in "human rights." I agree that a foetus is absolutely a human in a biological sense.
 
If this sticks then it should also apply to alcohol and tobacco.

I think it is wrong to use such drugs during pregnancy but I don't know how it will help to prosecute the kind of people who do this.
 
I'm pro-choice, and I stopped arguing over the status of the fetus a long time ago. Beyond the issue of late term abortion, it's an issue that has no real answer. What matters more to me is whether or not you support a woman's bodily sovereignty. That's what this is about. You either think the woman's body trumps the fetus, or you don't.

The pro-life movement is mostly a war on women. We know this because many pro-lifers will make exceptions for abortion in the case of incest, rape, or medical emergency: in one instance it's murder and in another case it's not. Pro-lifers can't seem to give us a solid definition of personhood that even makes sense or is non-contradictory, so the personhood debate is not one that I have anymore. The right wing's war on abortion is a war on women's sexual liberation. They want to make sure "sluts" are getting what they deserve, for going outside of traditional norms. You see it with the constant victim blaming, and how pregnancy is viewed as punishment for a sexual act instead of a choice that should be well considered before having a baby.

In the OP article we have a woman with a medical issue (addiction) whose fetus is given higher priority than her. Mississippi has chosen to side against women, it's obvious. Roe v Wade decided that abortion is a private issue between a woman and her doctor, and that the State has no business interfering.

The Supreme Court WILL toss out MI's ruling of homicide.
 
That seems completely absurd to me. Either a foetus is a human and should have rights, or it is not. But you're saying an intentional abortion is completely fine, but an accidental abortion is criminal. I guess the defendant should just claim that she meant to kill the baby through her drug use, and that would be okay?

We are not allowed to kill dogs or cats, but they are not people.
If a woman commits to going through with the pregnancy, she takes the responsibility of keeping the fetus alive and even caring for it as well as she can.
Just as when we adopt a dog from the pound we take this responsibility.
The woman can decide to get an abortion within the first trimester, for example, but later on it becomes risky.
People who are pro-choice don't usually say that it is okay to kill newborns, since they are just like a fetus except a few days older.
So a late-term pregnant woman has the responsibility to keep her fetus alive and healthy, in my mind.
Being pro-choice doesn't mean having a wanton disregard for fetuses.
It means that one believes that pregnant women should be allowed to make the terrible choice to abort.
 
I'm pro-choice, and I stopped arguing over the status of the fetus a long time ago. Beyond the issue of late term abortion, it's an issue that has no real answer. What matters more to me is whether or not you support a woman's bodily sovereignty. That's what this is about. You either think the woman's body trumps the fetus, or you don't.

The pro-life movement is mostly a war on women. We know this because many pro-lifers will make exceptions for abortion in the case of incest, rape, or medical emergency: in one instance it's murder and in another case it's not. Pro-lifers can't seem to give us a solid definition of personhood that even makes sense or is non-contradictory, so the personhood debate is not one that I have anymore. The right wing's war on abortion is a war on women's sexual liberation. They want to make sure "sluts" are getting what they deserve, for going outside of traditional norms. You see it with the constant victim blaming, and how pregnancy is viewed as punishment for a sexual act instead of a choice that should be well considered before having a baby.

In the OP article we have a woman with a medical issue (addiction) whose fetus is given higher priority than her. Mississippi has chosen to side against women, it's obvious. Roe v Wade decided that abortion is a private issue between a woman and her doctor, and that the State has no business interfering.

The Supreme Court WILL toss out MI's ruling of homicide.

I guess that I am with you until you refer to addiction as a medical condition.
While that is partly true, it is also a choice. Unlike cancer or AIDS, addiction is a medical condition that was accepted by choice, and the choice extends to each hour of each day. The woman could and should have chosen to get clean once she knew she was pregnant. I bet that there are places where public funds would have made it possible for her to rehab for free. Or she could have chosen to abort (though maybe not in MI?). By not choosing to abort, and choosing to continue her addiction, she did something that I find reprehensible. I would not charge her with murder or manslaughter, as I said earlier, but something like negligence.
 
Top