This Woman Says She Had A Miscarriage. Now She Could Face 70 Years In Prison.

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

This Woman Says She Had A Miscarriage. Now She Could Face 70 Years In Prison.
This Woman Says She Had A Miscarriage. Now She Could Face 70 Years In Prison. | ThinkProgress

Depending on the outcome of a hearing scheduled for Monday, a 33-year-old Indiana woman could face up to 70 years in prison for what she says was a miscarriage. Reproductive rights advocates say her case is a disturbing example of overly broad laws that essentially criminalize pregnancy.

Purvi Patel was arrested in 2013 after she went to the emergency room to seek medical treatment for heavy bleeding. After initially denying that she had been pregnant, she eventually told the staff that she had a premature delivery at home, believed the fetus was not alive, and placed it in a bag in a dumpster on her way to the hospital. Her doctors called the cops, who questioned Patel while she was still in the hospital, searched her cell phone records, and recovered the fetus.

Patel maintains that she did not abandon a living baby. “I assumed because the baby was dead there was nothing to do,” Patel later told law enforcement officials. “I’ve never been in this situation.
I’ve never been pregnant before.”

State officials, meanwhile, contend they have evidence to suggest Patel attempted an illegal abortion after purchasing abortion-inducing drugs online. They say she intentionally tried to end her pregnancy — even though a toxicologist testified there was no trace of the drugs in her bloodstream — and then abandoned her living child after the termination was unsuccessful.

If there's none of this drug in her system, then where's the proof.

Critics say there are a lot of issues with the way Patel’s case has unfolded over the past two years. For instance, Patel was first questioned in her hospital bed without a lawyer present. Expert witnesses could not come to consensus about the gestational age of her fetus.

Since they couldn't determine the fetus age. How would they know this baby had a chance of making it.

The prosecution relied on a highly unscientific method to try to determine whether her fetus was born dead or alive.

Purvi Patel feticide: Why did the pathologist use the discredited lung float test?

Davis, who is also the assistant state medical examiner for the commonwealth of Kentucky, said there are at least three reasons why a float test could yield inaccurate results, indicating the presence of air in the lungs even though the fetus never took a breath. The first is easiest to understand: If any attempt at resuscitation was made, either through mouth-to-mouth or chest compressions, that can introduce air into a lung, thus causing it to float even if the fetus was stillborn. The second has to do with decomposition: If the fetus has decomposed even a little bit, the lungs can fill with gas bubbles that would also result in the lung floating. Finally, Davis said, a fetus’s lungs can fill with air just by going through the vaginal canal, because pressure on the chest creates a “bellows effect.”

Why are they still doing this test ,And using it as evidence when it means nothing.

 

[JustMeSee]

It appears the state is attempting to set an example.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

There is absolutely no biological grounds to determine when "personhood" begins, that is entirely up to the philosophers/theologians.

 

[ranunculus]

If you believe in personhood from conception then every miscarriage demands an investigation into possible murder or manslaughter.

 

[dogs4thewin]

If you believe in personhood from conception then every miscarriage demands an investigation into possible murder or manslaughter.

Some Miscarriages are just COMPLETE accidents.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

Some Miscarriages are just COMPLETE accidents.

Some?

 

[HannahT]

Could be they are upset that she threw the fetus out with the trash?

 

[dogs4thewin]

Some?

If I do certain things it is more likely that I will have a miscarriage.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

If I do certain things it is more likely that I will have a miscarriage.

Exactly.

And when does criminal negligence, or worse, come into effect?

For example, imagine a woman exercising during pregnancy, which is supposed to be a good thing. But what if she exercises too vigorously, and has a miscarriage, is that manslaughter?

 

[Paulos23]

That is, nuts. They are pushing forward with almost no evidence. It is going to break the law.

I hope they come to their senses, or have a judge through the whole thing out.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Exactly.

And when does criminal negligence, or worse, come into effect?

For example, imagine a woman exercising during pregnancy, which is supposed to be a good thing. But what if she exercises too vigorously, and has a miscarriage, is that manslaughter?

no, because she may not realize she is going too far. On the other hand, if she drinks or smokes and KNOWS she is pregnant then that could be argued to be manslaughter.

 

[keith99]

Could be they are upset that she threw the fetus out with the trash?

Ya think?

Of course. A true car accident with a car and pedestrian and the car speeds away one suspects the driver. Even if a subsequent investigation shows it was entirely the pedestrians fault the driver is still guilty of illegally leaving the scene of an accident.

That she abandoned what may have been a living baby is a serious issue.

Determining her level of guilt, if any, is what trials are for.

 

[Desk trauma]

Some Miscarriages are just COMPLETE accidents.

As are the deaths of some children, would that mean all child deaths should just be chalked up as ok and not investigated?

 

[dogs4thewin]

As are the deaths of some children, would that mean all child deaths should just be chalked up as ok and not investigated?

no, but it is harder to prove that the issue.

 

[Desk trauma]

no, but it is harder to prove that the issue.

Hence why all miscarriages would need to be investigated if were going with the rights at conception idea. Additionally it would be a good idea to monitor women know to be pregnant as well as all other women to make sure they are not pregnant.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Hence why all miscarriages would need to be investigated if were going with the rights at conception idea. Additionally it would be a good idea to monitor women know to be pregnant as well as all other women to make sure they are not pregnant.

That would be kind of hard to do. Plus, it could be argued that that would invade privaicy.

 

[Desk trauma]

That would be kind of hard to do. Plus, it could be argued that that would invade privaicy.

Suddenly not in favor of rights at conception?

 

[dgiharris]

I'm a pretty big advocate of woman's rights and feel it is their body and thus their decision.

However, in this case, even I would be looking at bringing this woman to trial. That is what a trial is for. There are plenty of concerning facts that warrant a trial.

And a trial would sort all of this out and if she is not guilty then that will come out in a trial.

But as near as I can tell from this article, there is definitely gray area between this being a miscarriage and this being labor (couldn't find how far along she was, I mean, if she is 3 months along that is one thing, if she was 7 months along then quite another).

Then there are the chain of events and if her actions were reasonable...

Now, I'm not saying she is/was guilty, but there is clearly enough doubt here to warrant an investigation and a trial.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Suddenly not in favor of rights at conception?

I did not say that, but you ever heard the expression in law enforcement "it is not what we know ( I think we know) it is what you can prove?

 

[Desk trauma]

I did not say that, but you ever heard the expression in law enforcement "it is not what we know ( I think we know) it is what you can prove?

Hence the need for very close monitoring of women to make sure that no ill is befalling the unborn citizens.