An Indiana woman is facing trial for the murder of her 3-day old baby, resulting from the ingestion of rat poison in an attempt to take her own life a few days earlier. The charge against the woman is due to Indiana's version of a law which creates a double charge against those who commit violence against a pregnant woman, to account for harm to the fetus. Most versions of the law (existing in 36 states and at the federal level, under the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004) were passed after the Laci Peterson case (2002) in order to offer extra protection to pregnant women. Because of its origins, many people argue that the law's application against Bei Bei Shuai violates its intent. If Shuai is convicted, groups such as Reproductive Health Reality Check fear it could be applied to punish any pregnant woman who engages in unhealthy or risky behavior in any form.
"according to the ways the laws are being applied here, the state of
Indiana believes that any pregnant woman who smokes or lives with a
smoker, who works long hours on her feet, who is overweight, who doesn't
exercise, or who fails to get regular prenatal care, is a felon. And
the list of ways these laws could be construed to unconstitutionally
prosecute pregnant women goes on and on."
Is it discrimination to criminalize for pregnant women risky or self-destructive behavior that is legal for others? Does the application of Indiana's fetus protection law against a mother rather than a third-party violate its original intent? If so, does that make the law unethical? Where should prosecutors draw the line when determining if potentially harmful activity is illegal?
3 comments:
If this is the case, then all mothers who have children with fetal alcohol syndrome should be thrown in jail and all mothers who try to obtain an abortion should also be thrown in jail. I don't know if this law violates "a woman's right to privacy," but I certainly don't believe that Bei Bei Shuai should be convicted of the crime she is charged with on the basis that she harmed her unborn child. Like the "stand your ground laws," the intent of the law may have been good, but the application and actual use of it is pretty flawed.
No disrespect to those who disagree with me, but I think the answer is obvious here. This woman is clearly psychologically and emotionally damaged, and she should be put in a treatment facility rather than thrown in jail. As Alice said, by these accounts, all pregnant women who do any sort of harm to their bodies during pregnancy (drinking, abortion, etc.) should also be subject to the same consequences. Indiana’s creation of a law that calls for a double charge against those who commit violence to a pregnant woman is certainly valid, but the application in this situation violates its original intent. In my opinion, the application of this law against all mothers violates its original intent, unless it can be somehow proven that the mother is intentionally putting at risk the safety and health of the fetus to extreme extents (an example of which I cannot conjure at the moment).
I agree with Alice in that the law may have been for good intentions, but not every situation can completely fit with it. Also, just because someone works long hours, is overweight etc., that does not make them a felon. Sometimes they cannot help being in that situation, and the law shouldn't categorize all pregnant women because they fit certain criteria. Going with what Alice said, the woman would benefit more from being in a treatment facility than in jail.
Post a Comment