Utah Woman Charged With Murdering Fetus

Yahoo ^ | 3/12/04 | ALEXANDRIA SAGE

[thoughtomator]

I do not need to reference God at all in order to make the case. This is pure biology:

Your life as a unique individual, and mine, and every other human being that ever existed, began when our father's sperm fertilized our mother's egg. The potential individuals are only potential while they are still half-beings described in the fractional 23-chromosome DNA of gametes. Once the new 46-chromosome DNA combination is created, it is no longer merely potential, but actual life. It meets every standard of the definition of life, and specifically human life, at that point. (And thus, being human life, has inalienable rights that must be protected.)

[thoughtomator]

If there is a prosecution based upon the woman ignoring the doctor's recommendation, then the doctor's recommendation de facto has the force of law. In addition, the doctor's assessment was a probability, and not a certainty; and also the additional surgery is itself not without risk. Moreover, there are mitigating and unexplained factors - the false impression the woman appeared to have about the severity of the surgery; the fact that no action was taken by any medical official to stop then endangerment - which if they believed their own recommendations, it was certainly their responsiblity to act; and of course, the established, if evil, law that a woman can kill her kids in the womb at her pleasure. In the context of the last item, it is as if the woman is being punished for not aborting the child. Then there is the issue of whether the government may force anyone to undergo any medical procedure, without a violation of fundamental rights.

Should the government be able to instruct an individual as to the proper way to manage the medical risks in such a case?

[BykrBayb]

I'm sorry about the nasty things I've said to you. It was wrong of me. I could give you my excuses about this being an emotional issue, but when you get right down to it, I was wrong. Will you forgive me?

[greenwolf]

Is there such a thing as a "right to life" which is sufficient to compel hardship and suffering on the part of others? To my thinking, the obvious answer is NO.

Incomplete parameters. "Is there such a thing as a "right to life" which is sufficient to compel hardship and suffering on the part of others in cases where the person voluntarily placed themselves in the position of having stewardship of the first partys life and health in a completely dependent and unbreakable relationship?"

One of the problems with "right2life" (there are more than one) is that it is an all or nothing proposition. Logically, if you believe in the idea at all, there should be no exceptions.

Particularly in the case of rape victims, there is no logical exception to be made. The law does not distinguish between born persons regarding the circumstances of their conception and birth, and there is no legal or logical basis for it to thus distinguish amongst the unborn. In other words, if ANY unborn child can be construed as having a "right to life" which supercedes its mother's right to control her own body and the uses to which it is put, then so also should the unborn child of the rapist.

Now, there actuaslly are people on these forums who will claim that this is in fact the case, but I view those people as idiots whose main purpose in life appears to be getting democrats elected to public offices.

Surely you can see the problem.

[edsheppa]

Should the government be able to instruct an individual as to the proper way to manage the medical risks in such a case?

Medical risks should be treated no differently from others. All of the factors you raise should weighed as they would be weighed in a non-medical situation.

However, do you actually think anyone on this board would be swayed by

and of course, the established, if evil, law that a woman can kill her kids in the womb at her pleasure. In the context of the last item, it is as if the woman is being punished for not aborting the child.

Yes, that legal theory (it is not a law) is evil and people of conscience should take every opportunity within the law to oppose it. This is just such an opportunity. The question is not that she was advised to abort but that she was advised to deliver by C-section.

[sarasmom]

Sadly, I have indeed experienced that attitude from some pro-lifers.Certainly not all of them, but from enough to know its out there.

I refused an amneo primarily because it had a 1:200 chance of causing abortion.

Now here is the part that really gets to me, relative to this case.This woman refused to follow medical advice, and is now being criminally charged with murder.Will my daughter someday be charged with murder or some lessor crime, if she drinks coffee or smokes during pregnacy, and her baby is born defective?
I have seen that position advanced by certain elements of our society.
I am also very much aware of a growing trend in this country to judge a persons worth and access to medical care based solely on their potential "quality" of life.
One day, my daughter might be forced to have an amneo,and quite possibly an abortion,if some doctor determines her baby is not "qualified" to live.
The pendulum can and does swing both ways.
I wish the government had never poked their nose into womens wombs, ala Roe vs Wade.
Nothing good ever has, or ever will, come from government laws and regulations about what can or should happen in womens wombs.

[wideminded]

In the hospital I witnessed a woman whose baby was tested with cocaine in its urine. A police officer later showed up in the maternity ward."

Which can, and will, lead to some women giving birth outside hospitals, putting the child at greater risk. Where do you think some of those babies-in-trashcans come from? For some problems law enforcement is just not the answer.

I also overheard some nurses saying that the woman was trying to leave the hospital temporarily (perhaps to score some more drugs). Clearly the primary concern should be the protection of the child, rather than the punishment of the mother, but someone has to be given the right to intervene in cases like this.

[SarahW]

Where's the puffing?


If you had a painless, scar-free, tummy-pooch free, C-section with instant recovery and no restrictions on lifting, by all means let us know.

That's when it goes well. It's not a "nothing" surgery, there are significant risks to the mother and the unborn child.

[oldironsides]

C section is an elective surgery. You have to sign off on it. Although 99% of women would sign for the surgery and anesthesia some may not. Have you ever read one of the papers for surgery and what can happen? It is scarey to consider all that could go wrong. This woman may have been petrified over the surgery itself........what do you do in a case like that? Knock her out and operate against her will? How can you justify abortion while prosecuting for this? This is a strange case for sure. I read my surgical permission slips when I required surgery last month. It was
not something I took lightly and I did read the entire thing.

[r9etb]

I am sick to death of your ignorant self-righteousness.

She whines, self-righteously.

[tickles]

I think that they should have kept her for observation, better to keep track of the babies, with the option of doing a c section if things became critical.

I'd also have to wonder why inducing labor couldn't have been done, perhaps if they had been delivered earlier they would have both survived, since she refused labor they could have given her that option if they thought it was critical that the babies be delivered soon. From this it sounds as if the only option she was given was a c section, not an attempt at labor and normal delivery, with surgical intervention only if necessary.

[KeyTapper]

I wonder how many pro-choice people woud defend this woman's decision with the tired old phrase "It's a woman's right to choose!".

There's a huge difference between maintaining a pregnancy until birth (no abortion) and the government expecting a woman to submit to being cut open.

I'm very much against abortion when it's used to get rid of an inconvenient fetus. Abortion to save the life of the mother or in the case of incest or rape I can support. However, this case of refusing to have a caesarian section to save the life of a fully formed child, when the mother was healthy enough to endure it, kind of stymied me.

Even if I were not in good health, I would opt for the surgery. There is a bond that forms between the mother and the child she is carrying and with all four of my children I felt it very strongly. I could easily bear testimony that the child I was carrying was a sentient person with a soul, who was developing, learning and communicating with me in a very personal and wonderful way. Apparently, though, that bond is not felt equally strongly by all prospective mothers. The prosecutors or doctors or somebody seems to think the woman's entire concern regarding caesarean section is cosmetic. However, I'm wondering if it could have been fear of being cut into. Was she fearful that a huge scar would cause her husband to abandon her? We just don't know enough about this woman's motives to form any kind of objective opinion, so it's fruitless to do so.

Leaving her motives out of the equation, should a woman who will not be cut into to save her unborn, full term baby be charged with murder if the baby dies because of her decision? As the article suggests, it leads to a very slippery slope. Where does it end? Do we charge a woman with murder if her baby dies because she didn't follow a healthy diet, prescribed by her doctor? I'm very uncomfortable with charging her with murder, the reason being that it is her body and she should be free to make decisions regarding being cut open for any reason. But! That's too close to the pro-choice/pro-abortion argument that a woman should be allowed to make her own decisions regarding her body.

I guess, my question is this: At the point where a woman is carrying a fully formed human being, is it murder for her not to do everything possible to deliver a baby? My uncomfortable response is, no.

[The Westerner]

That's where we disagree. I don't believe the fetus is a human life. At that stage, it is a cluster of cells which may eventually become a human being. I agree it is living. I would not call it a human being. That's why I stressed the word "potential" in my reply. Because I do not accept the premise that God has put life into this cluster of cells, it does not fall in the category of untouchable. I can understand that a woman feels sad if she loses it through miscarriage or abortion. But what she is sad about is that she thought she might become a mother some day. It's a disappointing loss to some, a devastating loss to others, and to some it's a relief.

[thoughtomator]

I don't believe the fetus is a human life. At that stage, it is a cluster of cells which may eventually become a human being. I agree it is living. I would not call it a human being.

Okay, so far we are agreed that a fetus is in fact a life.

Now the question remains, why do you think a fetus is not human? Were you human as a fetus? You certainly weren't canine or feline or bovine. Would it not be accurate to describe a pregnant cat as carrying a feline fetus?

[The Westerner]

I've got to call it a night. Of course it's not any other species but a homosapien. I don't know why you can't understand my point about "potential". I don't know how to explain it better. Can you tell me what you don't understand? An actual human life is one that has been born. It doesn't matter that the cluster of cells is for homosapien or not in the sense that legally it hasn't attained rights. It is not an individual, it has not individuated from the woman's body to become that actual human life. Well, I'm all in for now.

[petitfour]

Prior to the other day, I had not heard the stuff about full term C-section babies being more susceptible to lung problems. My friend confirmed that the "experts", Navy and Air Force obs, explained that the C-section could very well have been the cause. I don't think they were emphatic. I believe that doctors work in a world of statistics, and they are amazed when anomalies occur. My argument over this case is that there is no way that anyone can guarantee that baby would have survived birth in December.

I am hardly a natural child birth at any cost nutcase. I have been prepared for the possibility of having a C-section during all of my pregnancies. With #7, we were hours away from an artificial version (turning breach baby) and the technique could have resulted in immediate C-section. However, God and baby had other plans in mind. Baby defied statistics and turned on her own in the 38th week. The doctor on call when we went in prepared for a C-section due to regular, strong contractions and a breach presentation, hooked us up for a sonogram, and he stated, "Now, that's what I call a version by God. You can go home and rest now." (contractions had stopped.) But I would have done the C-section. It would hardly be prudent to leave six children motherless due to a silly notion that it's natural birth or else. I cannot explain why every ob I have had (at least 15) prefers natural deliveries over C-section. I guess they are natural childbirth nuts.

[CajunConservative]

Xenalyte wrote:

For the love of God, WHY GET PREGNANT then?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No kidding.

Somebody needs to talk to this woman about getting her tubes tied.

She has a history of being a "wonderful mother".

Woman who allegedly refused C-section has prior conviction

The Associated Press

The woman charged with killing one of her twins by refusing a Caesarean section was convicted of child endangerment in Pittsburgh nearly four years ago, a newspaper there reported Saturday.

The 2000 conviction of Melissa Rowland stemmed from a supermarket incident in which she punched her daughter several times in the face after the toddler picked up a candy bar and began eating it, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reported. Witnesses said Rowland screamed, "You ate the candy bar and now I can't buy my cigarettes."

An Allegheny County, Pa., court sentenced Rowland to five years probation for simple assault, reckless endangerment and endangering the welfare of a child. Her daughter was turned over to a child-welfare agency.

Prosecutors in Salt Lake City charged her Thursday with criminal homicide and child endangerment for refusing doctors' advice to get a C-section. Charging documents allege she was warned numerous times between Christmas and Jan. 9 that her twins probably would die if she did not get immediate treatment.

One of the twins, a boy, was stillborn Jan. 13. A girl survived and has since been adopted, but prosecutors say she tested positive for cocaine and alcohol.

Rowland, 28, of the Salt Lake City suburb of West Jordan, has denied prosecutors' claims that she avoided the surgery because of fears of scarring.

An after-hours call to Rowland's attorney, Michael Sikora, was not immediately returned. Sikora has said Rowland has a history of mental illness. Rowland said she attempted suicide twice and has spent time in a psychiatric hospital.

In a jailhouse interview Friday with The Associated Press, Rowland said her two children from her estranged husband have lived with his parents since 1997. She did not mention the prior conviction and said her children, ages 7 and 9, no longer live with her because she thought they were better off with their grandparents.

[tiamat]

Saw that. Thanks.

This whole thing makes me angry. I misscarried twice, had a C-section to have my Caitlin and I will not be able to have any more kids, although I would love to have more.

It infuriates me that this woman is so casual and uncaring about the children she holds so cheaply.

[CajunConservative]

I know what you mean about how infuriating it is, especially when there are so many decent people out there who would love to have children and be wonderful parents yet can't have children of their own. Here's some other interesting information too more details on the prior incident.

Prosecutors Probe Talk of Baby Selling

By Stephen Speckman

Deseret Morning News

Prosecutors are looking into the background of Melissa Ann Rowland, who is accused of murdering one of her twins before birth — including allegations of baby selling.

"That's under consideration at this time," Kent Morgan, a prosecutor with the Salt Lake District Attorney's Office, said Saturday.

"We have received information that (Rowland) is presently attempting to arrange bail by soliciting individuals to adopt a child who is alleged to be nonexistent."

A Sacramento couple interested in adopting a child of Rowland's said that is exactly what happened to them. In a telephone interview Saturday, Brian Farley told the Deseret Morning News that the California adoption agency he and his wife were using contacted them after talking with Rowland about giving up a boy for adoption.

Rowland, 28, is charged with first-degree murder, for allegedly refusing a recommended Caesarian section and later giving birth to twins, a girl and a stillborn boy. Prosecutors say they filed the charges because Rowland failed to seek medical care recommended to save the baby boy's life. She is being held in the Salt Lake County Jail on $250,000 bond. She could face life in prison if convicted.

Under the assumption that their adoption attorney had checked Rowland's background, Farley said, he and his wife agreed to accept collect telephone calls from the incarcerated woman. The calls began Feb. 26 and ended March 2, he said.

At the time of the last call, the couple believed Rowland had yet to deliver the baby boy, Farley said.

"Your emotions just go absolutely crazy when you hear, 'We have a kid,' " Farley said, cautioning parents looking to adopt to be careful.

"Check out your adoption agency," Farley added. "I'm furious that my adoption agency allowed this to happen."

Farley, 43, said he was unaware there was a twin involved until hearing a news report about Rowland's case on March 12 while on his way to work.

During all of the phone calls, Farley said, he told Rowland that he and his wife of nine years were mainly concerned the baby was healthy. Farley said he was told by Rowland, "You get me out of jail and I'll give you my child."

Farley said he was expected to come up with $5,000 for bail. It was his understanding that Rowland was in jail for child endangerment charges at the time. Farley said he even offered for him and his wife to fly to Salt Lake City and help Rowland through the birth.

Farley also said Rowland told him she was trying to get bail from one or more relatives in Florida. Farley said he was told by Rowland that she needed to have a Caesarean section and that she didn't want to have the child in jail. Rowland had already given birth, however, on Jan. 13.

Morgan said he knows Rowland is the mother of three children, including the girl born Jan. 13. There is speculation Rowland has given birth to as many as six children. There is also evidence to suggest that Rowland sold at least one child through a "legitimate" adoption agency, according to Morgan.

Rowland and one of her children were the subject of a July 2000 Pennsylvania court case, in which Rowland pleaded guilty to charges of simple assault, reckless endangerment and endangering the welfare of a child for striking her then 2-year-old daughter in the face with her fist. A story in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review on Saturday states that Rowland punched the child while in the checkout line of a grocery story after the girl ate a candy bar.

Witnesses told police that Rowland then dragged the child from the store, slapping her several times before throwing the toddler into a car through an open window. When police arrived, Rowland also slammed the child on the car's trunk, causing her to hit her head, the story states. About 20 witnesses to Rowland's behavior formed a human chain around the woman's vehicle and prevented her from leaving the area before police could intervene, the paper reported.

In an interview with the Associated Press Friday, Rowland said her two children from her estranged husband have lived with his parents since 1997. She did not mention the previous conviction and said her children, ages 7 and 9, no longer live with her because she thought they were better off with their grandparents. Rowland was not available for an interview from the Salt Lake County Jail on Saturday.

Charges filed last week in Salt Lake County's 3rd District court state that Rowland was advised by a doctor at LDS Hospital to have a C-section as early as Jan. 2 because of difficulties that were life-threatening to the unborn babies. Court documents state Rowland would visit two more hospitals before giving birth Jan. 13.

Some parental rights advocates have accused the district attorney's office of making the case "political, " but Morgan said there is no such agenda.

"The only thing the District Attorney's Office wanted to do was to have someone come up and stand up for the dead baby," Morgan said.

[Borderline44]

Another absolutely absurd example of government overstepping its bounds and intruding into a field that it knows nothing about. If the tables were turned and the doctor had performed a procedure which resulted in the death of this woman's baby, there would be no criminal charges. There would be civil liability to be sure, but no criminal charges (unless it was an extreme case). This is a case where a person is being charged with MURDER for disagreeing with her doctor. Cesarean sections are used far too much as it is, and many cases where they are not necessary.

This is patently ridiculous, it makes sense that this foolishness is coming out of Utah, and I feel sorry for any person that lives in a place where they can be charged with murder for going against their doctor's advice.