She had a stillborn baby. Now she’s being charged with murder.

No, it does not apply because there is no evidence of INTENT which the law REQUIRES.

 

The felony murder rules does not require intent to commit murder for someone to be charged in the commission of a murder. Any death that stems from the commission of a felony offense, even if it is purely accidental, is classified as a murder. And as the acquisition and use of substances such as meth is a felony offense at the federal and state levels, the felony murder rule applies and supersedes the protections found in the unborn victims of violence act.

 

You cited the UVVA as the basis for the murder charge and the UVVA requires INTENT.

14% of infant deaths occur within an hour of birth.

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/infant-mortality-u-s-compare-countries/#item-

Onus is entirely on you to PROVE that the death was as a result of the drug usage.

 

No post...

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Depends on the state and the age of the fetus...

Just once I'd like those who say, ""well, what about if a guy(always a guy for some reason) kills a pregnant woman and he's charged with double homicide" do some research on the laws instead of .just repeating what they saw another Anti-Choicer post






No, that isn't true.

The UVVA does NOT give, nor can it give, a fetus personhood.

It cannot make a fetus into a "baby".

Only in that it might lead people to believe erroneously that the fetus is a legal person with rights .

 

False. The unborn victims of violence act was cited in explanation for why the murder of a pregnant individual is legally classified as a double homicide. Failure and/or refusal to recognize facts in evidence duly noted.

Irrelevant as deaths that occur after a live birth do not amount to a stillbirth.

Except for the fact the claim on the part of myself was not that the death occurred as a result of the usage of illicit narcotic substances. The claim made was how the death occurred in connection with the commission of at least one felony offense, thus making it applicable under the felony murder rule. The article in question specifically stated the fetus had high levels of illicit narcotic substances in its system, and that the mother in question was using said substances up until three days before the stillbirth occurred.

There is enough of a connection and/or relation between the two events to meet the burden of proof in a court of law, not only to support a murder charge, but also a conviction.

 

So , you say that an unfortunate woman addicted to meth, happened to have sex. Then, due to lack of self control, continued to take meth after knowing she was with child. The child is dead and the woman is guilty of bad choices. So your solution is to destroy the only life left and deny the chance of any redemption. Am I correct?

 

Utterly wrong in all respects!

For starters stillbirths count as being within an hour of birth.

Thank you for establishing that you have no legal basis or evidence for these charges.

Have a nice day!

 

Yup, you just left out the part that there are other children who will now be without their mother.

 

it does, it should be killing a pregnant woman, which should be taken into account on sentencing, it's not a double homicide - anti-choicers just made this law to attack women that choose to have an abortion, and as we can see, it's now being used to attack this mother for having a stillbirth

it's forced abortion, forced abortion should be a felony
just like forced pregnancy should be a felony

 

in the future people addicted to drugs will feel they have to have an abortion - that is the message here

 

It was quite obvious she cared more about her own comfort and feeding her addiction, than the well being of the child she was carrying. Had she given birth she would have been forced to choose between either continuing to feed her addiction, or providing care for her child as a single parent since there is no mention of a father. She could not afford to do both simultaneously. And as she was using illicit narcotic substances up to three days before the failed delivery, it is obvious which of the two options she would have chosen.

Even those who are remorseful for committing murder are still prosecuted and convicted as punishment for their actions. Such is how society works. If she wishes redemption she is free to find it in prison while serving out for conviction and getting over being addicted to illicit narcotic substances.

 

Was the child in question in this article born alive and died shortly thereafter?

Whichever it was, the hospital reported high levels of methamphetamine present, and the dangers posed by such substances are very well established. And as the child was not able to ingest methamphetamine on their own, there is only one way it could be present in the body of the deceased in such a high concentration.

How did the methamphetamine get in the system of the deceased child to begin with?

 

Perhaps it is time for the united states to force individuals to choose between addiction and parenthood. They can have one or the other, but they cannot have both.

 

Maybe it should be illegal for a drug addict capable of having a baby to have sex.
If you're saying she shouldn't be punished for it if she gets pregnant and can't stop the drugs.

 

No it doesn't. Extreme reckless endangerment. This should be manslaughter at the very least.

But a thought occurred to me. What if the woman had intentionally killed the fetus because she knew the baby would likely turn out to be a crack baby and she wanted to cover up her crime. She might have intentionally taken an overdose to try to kill it.

 

She should have known her actions could have killed that baby, certainly put it in great danger. That alone is enough to prove murder. Whether or not that was her specific goal.

It would be like if I (intentionally) mixed household chemicals releasing poison gas inside the same bedroom where a baby in a crib is sleeping, and that baby dies. They don't have to prove specific intent to kill the baby. There's an obvious connection.

 

Could be.... Then she performed a service a Doctor would charge for. But it makes no difference as far as the fetus is concerned.... Her body her choice... Drug offences usually require possession so making a drug charge stick may be difficult also.

 

That's the pro-choice logic.

But look how old the baby was in this case.

They charged her with murder so she'll probably be pushed into pleading guilty through a plea bargain. Unless she wants to risk getting something she didn't give her fetus: LIFE.

Likely this will never go to jury trial.

 

You confuse a baby with a fetus. A fetus has no rights under the law. I don't like it.... but things just happened that way.

 

Look how late into the pregnancy this happened.

 

Yes, she could have sought help.

 

And how in the world are going to accomplish this?

 

But it is a double homicide, that's the law, soooooo..

 

Maybe sterilization? There should be a 3-strikes-you're out law. Have three crack babies and you get sterilized.