Supreme Court Upholds "Homicide by Abuse" Ruling - PhillyBlog

Indigo · #1 (**permalink**) 10-06-2003, 03:49 PM

The Supreme Court opened today by refusing to consider several cases that were hoping to appeal state rulings. Of interest to me was the second case the article below described.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/06/po...D-SCOT.html?hp

Quote:

The case of the mother convicted of murder after her baby was delivered stillborn is the latest development in the the issue in South Carolina, where officials have been especially determined to make pregnant women responsible for their behavior.

The South Carolina Supreme Court first upheld the practice of state officials' treating a fetus as a person in connection with the prosecution of pregnant women who used drugs.

The case at issue today involved Regina McKnight, who was described in court documents as having low intelligence and who was helped with her everyday needs by her mother until 1998. Her lawyers said that after her mother was killed in a hit-and-run accident, Ms. McKNight "quickly spiraled downward, becoming homeless, addicted to cocaine and marijuana — and pregnant."

After she delivered a stillborn female, nurses took samples from her and the baby and sent them to the authorities under a procedure put in place by the state. Both tested positive for cocaine.

The state had previously prosecuted women for abuse if their delivered babies showed traces of cocaine, but Ms. McKnight's was the first drug-related case to be tried and convicted for murder under the "homicide by abuse" law.

On law.com’s law dictionary, the legal definition of murder is, in reference to unborn children is “death of an unborn child who is "quick" (fetus is moving) can be murder, provided there was premeditation, malice and no legal authority. Thus, abortion is not murder under the law.” Abortion is defined as “the termination of pregnancy by various means, including medical surgery, before the fetus is able to sustain independent life.” So, since the woman above was charged with murder, is it correct to assume that had her child only been in the first trimester and she miscarried that she would have simply had an abortion rather than committing murder?

Why is it only the use of drugs that could subject a woman to this prosecution for murder? What about reckless driving that results in a fatal accident to the child? Having unprotected sex, getting HIV, and passing it on to the child? Smoking cigarrettes or drinking to the point of delivering a stillborn child?

In addition, why also is it only for murder? What about irreparable damage by smoking or drinking, or using drugs that doesn't result in death but leads to a lower quality of life?

zogby blob · #2 (**permalink**) 10-07-2003, 09:56 AM

I agree with the courts on this. It's murder if life is possible outside of the womb.

brooke · #3 (**permalink**) 10-07-2003, 08:29 PM

Hmmm...interesting topic, Indigo. Also let me throw in there that if you, say, assault a pregnant woman and she miscarries, you have a manslaughter charge against you, if I'm not mistaken. But if that woman chooses to abort herself, it's just a choice.

To me--the above difference is choice. If I want to have a baby, it's my body and I should be able to do so. If I don't, also my choice to abort. But logically, it's a rough argument to make, I'll admit.

In terms of criminalizing a delivery of a baby that is stillborn...hmm...that's rough. I do not think women should be able to basically slowly torture a fetus inside them at, say, 3rd trimester when that fetus could be c-sectioned and viable, however, I also think it's tricky when the state starts to intervene in criminalization of such things. When does it become more than just the woman's body? If the fetus is going to be born, become a member of society, the mother intends to carry it ti term, why shouldn't it have rights at that point? However, it's scary when the government starts mandating pregnancies...I mean, a lot of pregnant women don't even have access to prenatal care. Personally, taken out of context, I'd have no problem with a law against smoking during pregnancy. But how to enforce it? If the woman chose to have an abortion, it's no longer criminal?

But then the slippery slope argument--would eating a vegetarian diet, which according to some doctors isn't the best for developing fetuses--could the state find this criminal some day? How about taking certain medication I may need if, say, I have HIV or something--medication that could harm the fetus. Could that be criminal.

Not sure on the answers here. Tough questions.

shawn33k3 · #4 (**permalink**) 04-23-2008, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brooke

Hmmm...interesting topic, Indigo. Also let me throw in there that if you, say, assault a pregnant woman and she miscarries, you have a manslaughter charge against you, if I'm not mistaken. But if that woman chooses to abort herself, it's just a choice.

To me--the above difference is choice. If I want to have a baby, it's my body and I should be able to do so. If I don't, also my choice to abort. But logically, it's a rough argument to make, I'll admit.

In terms of criminalizing a delivery of a baby that is stillborn...hmm...that's rough. I do not think women should be able to basically slowly torture a fetus inside them at, say, 3rd trimester when that fetus could be c-sectioned and viable, however, I also think it's tricky when the state starts to intervene in criminalization of such things. When does it become more than just the woman's body? If the fetus is going to be born, become a member of society, the mother intends to carry it ti term, why shouldn't it have rights at that point? However, it's scary when the government starts mandating pregnancies...I mean, a lot of pregnant women don't even have access to prenatal care. Personally, taken out of context, I'd have no problem with a law against smoking during pregnancy. But how to enforce it? If the woman chose to have an abortion, it's no longer criminal?

But then the slippery slope argument--would eating a vegetarian diet, which according to some doctors isn't the best for developing fetuses--could the state find this criminal some day? How about taking certain medication I may need if, say, I have HIV or something--medication that could harm the fetus. Could that be criminal.

Not sure on the answers here. Tough questions.

Looks like a great forum. Hope to add some knowledge to the forum in the future.

rgranter · #5 (**permalink**) 04-23-2008, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indigo

The Supreme Court opened today by refusing to consider several cases that were hoping to appeal state rulings. Of interest to me was the second case the article below described.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/06/po...D-SCOT.html?hp

On law.com’s law dictionary, the legal definition of murder is, in reference to unborn children is “death of an unborn child who is "quick" (fetus is moving) can be murder, provided there was premeditation, malice and no legal authority. Thus, abortion is not murder under the law.” Abortion is defined as “the termination of pregnancy by various means, including medical surgery, before the fetus is able to sustain independent life.” So, since the woman above was charged with murder, is it correct to assume that had her child only been in the first trimester and she miscarried that she would have simply had an abortion rather than committing murder?

Why is it only the use of drugs that could subject a woman to this prosecution for murder? What about reckless driving that results in a fatal accident to the child? Having unprotected sex, getting HIV, and passing it on to the child? Smoking cigarrettes or drinking to the point of delivering a stillborn child?

In addition, why also is it only for murder? What about irreparable damage by smoking or drinking, or using drugs that doesn't result in death but leads to a lower quality of life?

In any court of law, special needs, mentally sick, sexually abused, welfare cases & those on social security once convicted are automatically sent to prison because the courts figure the government has to pay their way anyway so might as well be in prison.

freeadforum · #6 (**permalink**) 06-03-2008, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rgranter

In any court of law, special needs, mentally sick, sexually abused, welfare cases & those on social security once convicted are automatically sent to prison because the courts figure the government has to pay their way anyway so might as well be in prison.

I pretty much agree though not everything is crystal clear.

Tannhauser · #7 (**permalink**) 06-03-2008, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indigo

Why is it only the use of drugs that could subject a woman to this prosecution for murder? What about reckless driving that results in a fatal accident to the child? Having unprotected sex, getting HIV, and passing it on to the child? Smoking cigarrettes or drinking to the point of delivering a stillborn child?

In addition, why also is it only for murder? What about irreparable damage by smoking or drinking, or using drugs that doesn't result in death but leads to a lower quality of life?

I agree, all of the above should be treated as murder or child abuse/assault/battery/etc.
Looks like onlaw.com is going to have to change their definition. While not legal, the moral definition is: the deliberate taking of the life of an innocent.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Supreme Court - Governments can seize land for private use	Professor Dave	The Nation	1	06-23-2005 06:01 PM
State Supreme Court upholds Megan's Law	SteveJohnston	The Nation	7	02-08-2005 12:49 PM
Religous Freedom of Restoration Act	Duffman	Spirituality & Faith	39	11-29-2004 11:02 AM
the pledge, God and the Supreme Court	peacemover	Spirituality & Faith	7	06-26-2004 01:23 AM
Michael Coard challenge 1210 hosts	Duffman	Philadelphians	52	05-12-2004 02:52 PM