Supreme Court Denies Stillbirth Appeal

[Rose Siding]

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court refused Monday to consider the case of a woman sentenced to 12 years in prison for murder after drugs were found in the system of her stillborn daughter.

Regina McKnight was convicted under South Carolina's homicide by child abuse law for the 1999 death. Her lawyers say she is the first woman convicted of homicide for suffering a stillbirth.

The case would have brought the court into a legal and constitutional debate over fetal rights. The court's answer would have had implications for the related fight over legalized abortion.
snip>


McKnight's lawyers say she is borderline mentally retarded and lived with her mother until her mother was killed by a hit-and-run driver in 1998. McKnight quickly became homeless, addicted to drugs and pregnant.

McKnight's lawyers say there is no proof her cocaine use caused the child's death.

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-scotus-stillbirth,0,309847.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

[veganwitch]

1. this is whats going to happen

when you granted full personhood to fetuses (feti?). women will be going to jail for: having caffinated coffee while pregnant, going to a smoky bar (while enjoying their club soda). yes, pregnant women (and women in general because they always seem to find ways of getting themselves pregnant) will become property of the state.

welcome to the handmaid's tale.

woot!

[Fenris]

4. Lie on your back and wait for the Commander, heathen female!

:D:D:D:D:D

[veganwitch]

7. while im at it...

too bad she was living in florida. then there would have been a legal custodian for the fetus forcing the mother to stay clean and then dumping her back on the street to start the process all over again.

*end sarcasm*

[bleedingheart]

14. I am with you...now if you suffer a miscarriage your neighbor

could report you because you didn't eat healthy enough.....ugh!

[trotsky]

2. This is highly disturbing.

I agree that substance abuse by pregnant women is a horrible problem. However, a stillbirth can be caused by any number of reasons, and many of those are UNKNOWN.

We have a legal principle in this country called "beyond reasonable doubt." Apparently the Supreme Court is willing to abandon this principle just as they did with states' rights in 2000.

[strutegery]

6. WOW - Why haven't I seen this in the news?

Oh, must be that liberal media covering it up. *sigh*

Punishing this woman benefits NO ONE, and yes this is much like "Handmaid's Tale" or even "Scarlet Letter". The only privacy and freedoms the conservatives value is their OWN.

[newyawker99]

35. Hi strutegery!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Rose Siding]

9. One could logically conclude

that the woman's drug usage was the cause of her baby's death. But is addiction a disease or a crime? I think I have it figured out: Crime if you are poor, disease if the user is a wealthy, connected repub?

It isn't even a double standard. It's multi faceted! 12 years is a stiffer sentence than has been given for many other deaths caused by more intentional and brutal means.

[trotsky]

12. But could you conclude it beyond reasonable doubt?

I don't think so. Perfectly healthy and drug-free women can have stillborn babies too.

But you're right about the crime/disease double-standard, that's for sure.

[peterh]

23. I’ll take it one step further….

If you are white, the system probably won’t look at you, but if you’re a non-white, the pro-life people will use you to further their agenda….hence, a retarded homeless pregnant black woman goes to jail for 12 years….I feel, the ultimate objective of these critters, is to afford total rights all the way back to the egg and the only <legal> way an egg can perish is through the natural cycle.

It doesn’t surprise me that “this” court refused to review this.

[iverglas]

25. no baby died

"One could logically conclude
that the woman's drug usage was the cause of her baby's death."

The article refers to a stillbirth -- which is when a fetus is delivered dead.

If the fetus had survived delivery and died after successful birth, then there would have been a baby who died. (There would also have been a bit of a more complicated legal problem, but that's not the current situation.)

While it could properly be a criminal offence for a third party to cause a miscarriage against the wishes of the pregnant woman, there is simply no way that causing a miscarriage or stillbirth can be "homicide", no matter who does it. Despite all the bizarre and plainly unconstitutional laws in the US that call it homicide or treat it as if it were homicide.

Homicide is the killing of a human being, a fetus is not a human being, and treating the unlawful causing of a miscarriage or stillbirth -- or a woman's own acts if they cause a miscarriage or stillbirth -- as if it were a homicide is contrary to the most fundamental principles of criminal law.

What's next: treating shoplifting as if it were homicide? Why not just call all bad acts "homicide", make them all subject to the death penalty or life imprisonment, and have done with it? Maybe because it would be contrary to a couple of little things like due process and equal protection?

A woman who is pregnant is just as entitled to engage in any act she chooses as any other human being; she has exactly the same rights as any other human being, and should be subject to exactly the same penalties for breaking the law as anyone else.

Her drug use may have been illegal, but that does NOT make a stillbirth a "homicide". No one who overdoses on an illegal drug is, or could be, charged with "attempted homicide". For exactly the same reasons, no one who causes her own miscarriage or stillbirth by using illegal drugs, or by any other means, can be charged with homicide.

This is an appalling decision by the US Supreme Court. It is completely contrary to the most fundamental human rights, and to the guarantees of individual rights in the US constitution. It is utterly shameful.

And what an excellent target they picked for the opening volley. Imagine if the right wing misogynists who are obviously responsible for this prosecution had been faced with an educated, wealthy white woman whose fetus was stillborn after, oh, she was thrown from her horse. (Surely pregnant women who ride horses are endangering their fetuses.) But then, her private hospital staff would not likely have thought to report her for causing the stillbirth, I don't suppose.

This can only lead to further erosion of women's human rights in the US. It is utterly beyond me how anyone could argue that this woman's actions constituted "homicide", while an abortion does not.

.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

16. Yes, even teetotaling

non-smoking vegetarian Seventh Day Adventists have stillbirths, and there are many possible causes, including genetic defects.

[Mandate My Ass]

19. SCOTUS previously did the right thing

in Ferguson v. the City of Charleston when hospitals and police had a secret agreement that women who came in for prenatal visits should be screened for drugs without their knowledge and hospital personell secretly called the police to arrest them if they came up positive. SCOTUS ruled against the city for violating women's privacy and Constitutional prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures.

This is just as much an outrage as the other case and I can't see why they didn't take it.

[Ilsa]

3. Where's the damn "safety net"?

This woman was borderline mentally retarded, left homeless, and they are worried about her unborn baby? How were they intending to take care of the baby after it was born? Force her to adopt it out? Would they have given the mother any help for food, shelter, as she cares for her newborn? So now they are taking care of her by imprisoning her? This is an indictment of the cruelty of our system.

Heartless Bastards.

[Mairead]

28. YES! This is why we must get rid of the safety-net-shredding 'centrists'

They're DINOs, and toxic.

[LeighAnn]

5. Oh what a terrible world

This is going to have the opposite effect of protecting the fetuses these right-wingers care so much about...more women afraid to get medical care, more babies born in bathrooms, more babies thrown in dumpsters. Instead of being so hell-bent on punishing people, why don't they take care of the social issues underlying these kinds of tragedies???

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

11. Why?

Simple. They want to make this a two-class system: The Extremely Wealthy(The NewLords) and everyone else(The NewSerfs). They want us to live in this world at their suffererance, and if you get poor, oh well...either jail, the poor house(Remember what Newt said?) or starve. They truly believe in Manifest Destiny and want to know nothing about Noblesse Oblige.

History shows where these sorts of things tend to end up. In this society, you can count on it.

[Chovexani]

30. Spot-on analysis

Welcome to the New Feudalism, brought to you by WalMart (tm) and GOP.

[7th_Sephiroth]

36. if that happens

it will only be a short time before the wealthy majority are dragged out and killed by huge mobs, happened in france a long time ago.

[snippy]

45. What right wingers care about fetuses? I am unaware of any.

[sam sarrha]

8. if they are going to prosecute women for crimes related to addictive drugs

The compassionate Republicans need to provide drug rehab for them to have the opportunity to choose not to be addicted, Addiction is not something one can usually just walk away from...I know. But Bush has set the bar pretty high... since GOD saved him from his addiction..so anyone who can't stop their addiction are just not trying , are weak or unGodly and deserve their medical plight which deserves prison. Another example of imprisoning the medically ill... :spank:

[Mairead]

29. No, actually the Republicans have the answer: 'Just say no'.

[soupkitchen]

10. Logically, every miscarriage has to be investigated now.

Did the mothers do anything at all to endanger the welfare of the child?
It certainly seems like a tangled can of worms that has been opened here.

[Malva Zebrina]

15. I think you are right--did she ;forget to take her Folic Acid or her

vitamin pill might be the parameter under which to consider accusing her and subsequently arresting her.

Under the dictator,Ceausescu, Rumanian women were forced to carry through a pregnancy when he outlawed the liberal abortion laws. Women were required to be examined monthly in health clinics to determine if they were pregnant. Birth control measures were also forbidden, I think, and women were expected to have at least five children--for the good of the state's economy. If they were examined monthly, they were being monitored for possibly having an illegal abortion, or even a miscarriage. So many babies were abandoned by women who could not care for them during this period that the state orphanages were overflowing with waifs--so many that babies were placed on the floor , crowded next to each other, for lack of cribs.

[styersc]

13. I remember when all of this took place and I was speaking to a friend

who works in a low-income clinic here in SC at the time. She told me that there was a dramatic decline in women coming in for pre-natal care as they were suspicious of medical professionals after this. We forced women in to high risk situations and removed the very clients that the medical professionals needed to reach. Drug abuse is a medical problem that can be addressed.

[jiacinto]

17. I feel conflicted here

That's how I feel.

[David__77]

20. Why conflicted? Fetuses are not people.

I think that there may be an area for legislation in this area, but not for the purpose of elevating the fetus to the level of citizen or something like that.

[BenFranklinUSA]

31. Fetus-as-citizen is Federal Issue

The United States has the right/power to grant citizenship to whomever or whatever it sees in its best interest.

Could happen some day, folks.

[bleedingheart]

21. I can see how someone can be conflicted because

this individual was abusing substances which are known to cause problems and they are "demonized" by society...and there is the thought that an expectant mother should take care of herself during pregnancy in order to give the fetus the best possible chances.

However... this case could be twisted, and I am sure it will... Because there are women who are anorexic who get pregnant and are still puking up their meals much to the detriment of the fetus.., tens of thousands of expectant mothers are lighting a cigarette right now, ..etc Where does it stop?

Technically this could extend to outsiders as well... what about the husband or mother-in-law who are verbally abusive or cruel? What if they cause so much stress that the mother miscarries? Whose fault is it and who goes to prison for it?

[Malva Zebrina]

42. what if the father was a drug abuser and had a defective sperm?

nothing said about that re stillbirth.

[CheshireCat]

18. Once again

I am ashamed to be a South Carolinian!

[David__77]

22. "A baby's not a baby, until it comes out!"

A baby's not a baby, until it comes out!
That's what birthday's are all about!

That was a chant at a pro-choice demonstration I went to over 10 years ago. It makes an important point. Until birth, the fetus is objectively a part of the woman, not an independent being. It is dependent on her physiology, regardless of whether it COULD survive outside the woman. On this basis, we must as a recognize the woman's rights to sovereignty over her body. If we don't do so, we are deciding as a society to enslave women to their bodies and biology.

Charging this woman, especially since she is apparently mentally challenged, is wrong.

[rook1]

24. I appreciate your comments

...but not all cultures would agree with them...

"A baby's not a baby, until it comes out!
That's what birthday's are all about!"

[Mairead]

27. Quite right--some cultures wait til the child is a year out before

declaring it human. And a few even wait longer.

[7th_Sephiroth]

37. sounds logical

but its basing human life on its use to the goverment/scociety.

[NickB79]

34. That is true

My Cambodian friend is within 1 month of me in age, but his parents celebrate his "conception day" rather than his birthday because the culture they grew up in counts those 9 months in the womb while we do not.

[Mairead]

26. Gyns & guys, THIS is why we need to get rid of the 'centrists'.

They are right-wing fellow-travellers. Only they screw us indirectly, via money, rather than directly.

'Centrists' OUT!

[jiacinto]

32. Spare me

Yes let's be the party that only represents 30-40% of the voters, the same percentages that McGovern and Mondale received in their landslide losses. Let's be the party that America repudiated strongly in the 1970s and in the 1980s.

Be the "far left" party and watch how little support you actually get.

Then again, with the likes of you, why does it suprise me that you would be happy if we only had 35 Senators, 150 House Seats, and 10 Governorships as long as they were all "ideologically pure".

[BenFranklinUSA]

33. Amen

[wickerwoman]

38. Carlos, how would you feel about a law

that said Hispanics and only Hispanics could go to jail for murder if they didn't stop smoking and doing drugs?

You don't have to be "far left" or an ideological purist to see how absurd this ruling is.

[NewJerseyDem]

41. What does that hypothetical mean?

I don't really see your logic.

[Dhalgren]

39. Right now, the only major party who takes

women's rights seriously is the Democratic Party. Many women are rightfully concerned that there is a growing number of "centrists" in the party who seem to be "weak" on women's rights issues. This is the source of the concern and frustration.

[NewJerseyDem]

40. 35 senators? 10 governorships? 150 house seats?

That would be if we were lucky. I doubt that there are that many elected officials that fit the strict qualifications of some people that are here. I guess that a lot of people would be happier with with Priscilla Owen and Miguel Estrada on the federal bench, caps on medical malpractice lawsuits and drilling in ANWR because that would be what would happen if there weren't "centrists" in the democratic party.

[jiacinto]

44. I think they would be

Because the few Democrats that would be in office would "meet their strict qualifications". And they would rather have ideologially pure representatives than actually a coalition that might get things done.

[David__77]

43. The party was more to the right in the past.

The irony of your statement, while I actually agree with your anti-factional instincts, is that the Democratic Party was less progressive in the 70's and 810's. It contained outright right-wing elements in the south especially, was divided on abortion rights, and contained the likes of Scoop Jackson, who was at the center of what would now be called neo-conservatism. I have often wondered if a Ford presidency would have been much more favorable to a progressive agenda.

Today, "pro-life" Democrats are more of a rarity and the platform is more generally adhered to. The only area in which things have moved right is the death penalty, which mirrors society-at-large.

I don't believe that McGovern or Mondale were especially leftist. They seemed like they were just a bit center-left. I think that perception is much more important than labels.