Indiana prosecuting a woman who tried to commit suicide

Crime • March 2011 • Views: 3,739

Yesterday, the ACLU submitted a friend-of-the-court brief urging the Marion County Superior Court in Indiana to dismiss the prosecution of Ms. Bei Bei Shuai.

The facts of this case are heartbreaking. On December 23, 2010, Shuai, a 34-year-old pregnant woman who was suffering from a major depressive disorder, attempted to take her own life. Friends found her in time and persuaded her to get help. Six days later, Shuai underwent cesarean surgery and delivered a premature newborn girl who, tragically, died four days later.

On March 14, 2011, Shuai was arrested, jailed, and charged with murder and attempted feticide. Had Shuai, who is being represented by National Advocates for Pregnant Women and local attorneys, not been pregnant when she attempted suicide, she would not have been charged with any crime at all.

There you have it. If you are a pregnant woman, you are now a ward of the state.

Don’t believe me?

The state is misconstruing the criminal laws in this case in such a way that any pregnant woman could be prosecuted for doing (or attempting) anything that may put her health at risk, regardless of the outcome of her pregnancy.

That’s right: 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.

I can’t be snarky or make a mocking joke about this one. This is too damned serious to me. This is what religious tyranny begins to look like.

H/T Tom a Balloon Juice

Recent Pages by celticdragon (Scottish Dragon):
Ad Astra Review Game of Thrones: The Bells Just Your Reminder About Stephen Miller Rod Dreher Has Officially Gone White Nationalist War With Iran...The Ultimate October Surprise Before the Election

Jump to bottom

81 comments

Prononymous, rogue demon hunter Thu, Mar 31, 2011 3:28:08pm

and charged with murder and attempted feticide.

Quite Orwellian.

elizajane Thu, Mar 31, 2011 3:45:29pm

What country do we live in??

This ranks right next to yesterday's story about the 14-year-old who was stoned to death for adultery.
We were supposed to be better than that.

If anybody hears of a legal defense fund for this woman, let me know where to contribute.

Simply Sarah Thu, Mar 31, 2011 3:47:48pm

So...here we have a woman who has been through hell, who is/was clearly in need to help and support, and who recently lost a just born child...and the best interests of the State are served by putting her on trial? That's disgusting and makes me sick. The prosecutor doesn't need to press charges, so this is vindictiveness, pure and simple. It seems to be part of the continuing war against anyone and anything that isn't unborn.

Dancing along the light of day Thu, Mar 31, 2011 3:57:44pm

Wow. I would be banned for typing what I think.

calochortus Thu, Mar 31, 2011 4:21:07pm

Our tax dollars at work... This is heartbreaking. And disgusting. All the good folks in Indiana can think of to do is prosecute her? Really?

CuriousLurker Thu, Mar 31, 2011 5:04:59pm

This is what religious tyranny begins to look like.

You're right. Religious tyranny is religion devoid of all notions of love, compassion, mercy, kindness, and forgiveness, leaving behind only an inflexible carapace of inhumane rules. No light can be allowed to penetrate that stony shell because its sole purpose is to protect the darkest, most hateful & sadistic elements of human nature that reside within.

When I was a teenager, maybe 15 or 16 at most, there was an evangelical prayer meeting being held at our house. A man in his 50's was visiting from out of town, and he was apparently mildly famous among this particular group of Christians for his ability to lay hands on people an slay them in the spirit.

There were a dozen or so people in he room, some reading the Bible, some speaking in tongues, and others waiting in line for their turn to be slain in the spirit by this man. Someone suddenly decided it was my turn. I declined. The man (smiling) cajoled. I dug my heels in. The smile dropped off the man's face and he persisted, pointedly. I went full-on mule stubborn and said I was NOT going to participate no matter what he said. His fans were mortified. He was FURIOUS. This supposedly godly Christian man who was there to provide spiritual healing snarled & glared at me with a level of barely controlled rage and naked contempt that I'd never before experienced in my young life. I can still see his face clearly, 30+ years later.

Anyway, my point is that there was no godliness in that look, and certainly nothing Christ-like. It was unadulterated spite & hatred for having bruised his ego, for refusing to bow to his power & prestige within the group. THAT thing, that snarling ugliness, that human evil is what the stony shell of tyrannical, fundamentalist, religious rules serves to protect.

And celticdragon, this isn't directed at you personally, it's just a general statement: The next non-believer who feels the need to get up in my Muslim face and school me about how fucked up religion can be needs to step the hell off. That fundamentalist crap destroyed my parents marriage (and with it, our family life), irrevocably damaged my relationship with one parent, and made my life miserable for years, so I don't need anyone to explain to me how harmful & offensive it can be.

Rant over. //

Simply Sarah Thu, Mar 31, 2011 5:10:08pm

re: #6 CuriousLurker

CuriousLurker Thu, Mar 31, 2011 5:25:56pm

Thank you {{Simply Sarah}}.

I didn't mean to make that comment all about me, it's just that reading about that poor woman's suffering and the utter lack of compassion with which she's being treated triggered some pretty heavy memories. I usually try to keep them safely buried so they don't get loose and bite anyone, especially me. Heh.

My intention was to illustrate (in a very personal way) why fundies getting near the levers of power in this country is a Very Bad Thing™ indeed.

Prononymous, rogue demon hunter Thu, Mar 31, 2011 5:30:12pm

re: #6 CuriousLurker

Though I am an atheist I have attended many religious events for social/family reasons. I have seen similar looks that you refer to.

It is really shocking how fast someone's expression can go from "smiles and love" to "help me tie this guy down so we can do an exorcism".

CuriousLurker Thu, Mar 31, 2011 5:34:58pm

re: #9 prononymous

Though I am an atheist I have attended many religious events for social/family reasons. I have seen similar looks that you refer to.

It is really shocking how fast someone's expression can go from "smiles and love" to "help me tie this guy down so we can do an exorcism".

LOL, that's a perfect description! Thanks for the laugh—I'm favoriting that one.

jc717 Thu, Mar 31, 2011 5:45:20pm

Elections have consequences... A few more cases like this and maybe women will stop voting against their enlightened self interest.

KingKenrod Thu, Mar 31, 2011 5:52:41pm

I think people are mistakenly mixing their emotions up with the abortion issue and women's rights. I don't see it that way.

That's not what is going on here - there was a live birth - as most people know, once a baby is born alive, it is a citizen, and has the same human rights as you or me. The baby, 33 weeks and 4 lbs, lived for what must have been 4 agonizing days before dying of a brain hemorrhage. The baby died because of the reckless behavior of her mother, and I have no problem with the law holding her to account by whatever the law says.

The mother was certainly depressed and deserves sympathy for her tough situation. But had she killed someone else accidentally in a suicide attempt (via a car accident, for instance, or an errant gunshot), she would justifiably be charged with a crime - who could argue that she shouldn't?

The baby was born alive. Why doesn't the baby deserve the same protection as any other citizen?

Orwell? Religious tyranny? Give me a break.

And there's something else here - what if the mother had been trying to induce a miscarriage, not attempting suicide, by ingesting rat poison? Does anyone here think that is OK for a late-term fetus?

Prononymous, rogue demon hunter Thu, Mar 31, 2011 5:56:33pm

re: #10 CuriousLurker

I should add, I usually don't talk about my atheism in person for exactly that reason. I don't even tell some people, like my great aunt who is a nun. She's a wonderful person and it would break her heart.

Prononymous, rogue demon hunter Thu, Mar 31, 2011 5:58:03pm

re: #12 KingKenrod

Orwell? Religious tyranny? Give me a break.

No.

And there's something else here - what if the mother had been trying to induce a miscarriage, not attempting suicide, by ingesting rat poison? Does anyone here think that is OK for a late-term fetus?

No, that isn't ok. It would be horrible. She should simply have access to an abortion, IMO.

CuriousLurker Thu, Mar 31, 2011 6:07:41pm

re: #13 prononymous

I should add, I usually don't talk about my atheism in person for exactly that reason. I don't even tell some people, like my great aunt who is a nun. She's a wonderful person and it would break her heart.

It's understandable that you wouldn't want to talk about it, especially when you don't know where people stand. I admire you for your consideration of your aunt's feelings.

Our Precious Bodily Fluids Thu, Mar 31, 2011 6:20:46pm

re: #12 KingKenrod

That's not what is going on here - there was a live birth - as most people know, once a baby is born alive, it is a citizen, and has the same human rights as you or me. The baby, 33 weeks and 4 lbs, lived for what must have been 4 agonizing days before dying of a brain hemorrhage. The baby died because of the reckless behavior of her mother, and I have no problem with the law holding her to account by whatever the law says.

"Reckless" is drinking a fifth of vodka every weekend while pregnant. Suicidal behavior is not recklessness, but rather a symptom of severe mental illness. Like cancer or diabetes, mental illness left untreated or inadequately managed *will* result in early death.

Her brain was malfunctioning. It is no more reasonable to hold her accountable for a brain malfunction than it would be to hold her accountable for having kidney failure while pregnant.

I realize that this is very difficult to understand for people who have not been through it, or who haven't been close to anyone who has been through it, or who haven't worked in a professional capacity with people going through it. By definition, you are trying to understand her actions with your correctly-functioning (i.e., not suicidally depressed) brain. This is somewhat analogous to a person born without legs trying to understand what a compound femoral fracture feels like.

The mother was certainly depressed and deserves sympathy for her tough situation.

NO NO NO. She wasn't having a "tough situation". Clinical depression is not like being down in the dumps, or being sad, or having a bad day, or anything like that. She does NOT 'deserve' or need sympathy. She needs medical treatment. If you encountered someone going into diabetic shock, sympathy would be second to LAST on the list of things they need from you. The first thing would be a call to 911.

The baby was born alive. Why doesn't the baby deserve the same protection as any other citizen?

If you're going to split hairs, you're going to have to acknowledge that an emergency C-section is not the same as a natural birth, and then you're going to have to get all lawyerly and come up with language strictly delineating what "born" means. See why this is broken?

And there's something else here - what if the mother had been trying to induce a miscarriage, not attempting suicide, by ingesting rat poison? Does anyone here think that is OK for a late-term fetus?

Ingesting rat poison in an attempt to induce a miscarriage would be an act of rock-bottom desperation, and I would hope that you'd be able to think about that in human terms. Apart from that, it's a ridiculous straw-man.

CuriousLurker Thu, Mar 31, 2011 6:23:43pm

re: #16 negativ

Very well said.

Velvet Elvis Thu, Mar 31, 2011 6:34:15pm

re: #12 KingKenrod

I think people are mistakenly mixing their emotions up with the abortion issue and women's rights. I don't see it that way.

That's not what is going on here - there was a live birth - as most people know, once a baby is born alive, it is a citizen, and has the same human rights as you or me. The baby, 33 weeks and 4 lbs, lived for what must have been 4 agonizing days before dying of a brain hemorrhage. The baby died because of the reckless behavior of her mother, and I have no problem with the law holding her to account by whatever the law says.

The mother was certainly depressed and deserves sympathy for her tough situation. But had she killed someone else accidentally in a suicide attempt (via a car accident, for instance, or an errant gunshot), she would justifiably be charged with a crime - who could argue that she shouldn't?

You speak as someone who has never attempted suicide or been in that place. I have twice.

That child died as the result of untreated or undertreated mental illness. A lot of women and even obstetricians are under the mistaken notion that it's not safe to take psych meds while pregnant. This is the result.

Prononymous, rogue demon hunter Thu, Mar 31, 2011 6:38:33pm

re: #18 Conservative Moonbat

You speak as someone who has never attempted suicide or been in that place. I have twice.

That child died as the result of untreated or undertreated mental illness. A lot of women and even obstetricians are under the mistaken notion that it's not safe to take psych meds while pregnant. This is the result.

And even if she wasn't depressed before, being pregnant can significantly effect your psychological state, including leading to depression.

KingKenrod Thu, Mar 31, 2011 6:44:10pm

re: #16 negativ

Thanks for the reply. I don't believe mental illness should be a factor in determining guilt or innocence, only 1) what crime you are charged with and 2) what punishment, if found guilty. I'm all for mercy in tough situations. In my opinion, the woman should be found guilty (assuming the facts are as stated) and institutionalized. I certainly would not support a prison sentence. In fact, the prosecutor may be hoping for a quick plea and agreement to institutionalization. It's possible that this woman and her lawyer know this, but have decided to use public pressure to get the prosecutor to drop the charges as a first strategy.

On the issue of depression, my mother had severe depression, I know how awful it is.

And by "tough situation" I was just talking about her arrest and having to live with the fact that she caused the death of her baby.

calochortus Thu, Mar 31, 2011 7:06:26pm

re: #12 KingKenrod

I am not "mixed up" about abortion and women's rights.

This woman did not in fact try to kill the baby. There is nothing in this story to indicate she tried to kill it after the birth. She tried to kill herself while she was pregnant. Since the fetus is totally dependent on the mother, it was damaged by the attempt.

The question here is one of a woman's autonomy over her own body. There is also obviously a question of an individual's responsibility for their illness.

By the way, does fetal personhood mean that if a woman dies in childbirth we're going to try the infant for manslaughter?

Our Precious Bodily Fluids Thu, Mar 31, 2011 7:24:33pm

re: #20 KingKenrod

Thanks for the reply. I don't believe mental illness should be a factor in determining guilt or innocence, only 1) what crime you are charged with and 2) what punishment, if found guilty

If mental illness can't be considered a factor in determining guilt, then we are necessarily doing away with the concept of "intent". When it's working correctly, our legal system takes intent of the actor into account. That's why we don't treat a person who stupidly ran a red light and caused a fatal accident the same way we treat someone who shot the pizza delivery guy for the $40 he was carrying.

researchok Thu, Mar 31, 2011 7:39:51pm

All parties concerned have politicized what is a mental health issue.

The state is prosecuting the woman because she fell through the cracks (she ought have been treated for her condition or involuntarily been committed by a state mechanism that either didn't exist or was poorly administered). The fact that a person who might have hurt herself or her unborn child is evidence enough to have the woman committed. The fact that did not happen is the state's failing.

The ACLU is getting involved because they have a high profile soapbox.

It really is that simple.

Attempts to score political points on the basis of this tragic story are disingenuous and cynical at the very least.

Obdicut Thu, Mar 31, 2011 7:44:03pm

re: #23 researchok

The ACLU is getting involved because this is what the fuck they do, dude. This is their goddamn mission.

celticdragon Thu, Mar 31, 2011 7:44:40pm

re: #24 Obdicut

The ACLU is getting involved because this is what the fuck they do, dude. This is their goddamn mission.

Quoted for truth.

Prononymous, rogue demon hunter Thu, Mar 31, 2011 7:44:43pm

re: #22 negativ

Not to mention doing away with the concept of competency. If someone is unable to understand the implications of their actions, is it really right to hold them responsible?

celticdragon Thu, Mar 31, 2011 7:45:37pm

re: #20 KingKenrod

I don't believe mental illness should be a factor in determining guilt or innocence

I beg your pardon??

Obdicut Thu, Mar 31, 2011 7:45:47pm

If I had one goddamn political wish to make about the founding fathers, it'd have been for them to explicitly write 'privacy' as an amendment, instead of taking it for granted and implying it.

researchok Thu, Mar 31, 2011 7:48:22pm

re: #24 Obdicut

The ACLU is getting involved because this is what the fuck they do, dude. This is their goddamn mission.

Actually, this is what the State Attorney General should do.

The ACLU isn't exactly apolitical.

Obdicut Thu, Mar 31, 2011 7:49:36pm

re: #29 researchok

What do you mean? What other agenda is the ACLU pursuing here, other than their relentless pursuit of privacy rights?

Romantic Heretic Thu, Mar 31, 2011 7:51:06pm

re: #16 negativ

Thank you.

As some one who suffers from depression it's good to hear some one who doesn't spout the "Oh, just pull yourself together!" line. Having tried to take my own life in the past, and sometimes being so depressed that I was nearly catatonic it's a relief to hear people that don't hold that against me. Because I have.

Depression, all mental illnesses, are like cancer in another way. They are never cured. They only go into remission. You live every day with the fear it will come back, and it will kill you next time.

researchok Thu, Mar 31, 2011 7:51:37pm

The ACLU has a history of being selective in which cases it gets involved with.

And for the record, I support what the ACLU stands for. It's their politics I occasionally disagree with.

Obdicut Thu, Mar 31, 2011 7:52:44pm

re: #32 researchok

The ACLU defended Rush Limbaugh, the KKK, and Nazis.

Can you be clearer, please? What agenda does the ACLU have here?

researchok Thu, Mar 31, 2011 7:57:17pm

Start here.

Then there was the John Adams project that put lives at risk.

Plenty more examples

Obdicut Thu, Mar 31, 2011 8:02:57pm

re: #34 researchok

That didn't clear it up at all. Those are pretty unrelated articles-- the first one is about the ACLU discouraging board members from being critical about the organization, which has fuck-all to do with the subject at hand. The second is about a tension between upholding one part of the first amendment over the other. The third is about the ACLU fighting to learn the identities of government interrogators, which is exactly in line with what the ACLU stands for.

Nothing you posted showed the ACLU being anything other than a fanatical civil rights organization.

I'd really appreciate it if you just straightforwardly said whatever it is you're trying to imply.

researchok Thu, Mar 31, 2011 8:10:17pm

Right- the ACLU putting the lives of CIA operatives by showing gitmo prisoners photos of operatives is a good idea. There re also allegations the names and addresses were also handed over.

Further, where was the ACLU when the Duke students were falsely accused of rape? Where were they in demanding Mike Nifong be prosecuted after prosecutorial misconduct were found?

The fact that the organization who demands openness from everyone else except themselves speaks volumes.

I understand your idealization of the ACLU.

That doesn't make them perfect.

Obdicut Thu, Mar 31, 2011 8:16:21pm

re: #36 researchok

Right- the ACLU putting the lives of CIA operatives by showing gitmo prisoners photos of operatives is a good idea. There re also allegations the names and addresses were also handed over.

Did I say it was a good idea? What the fuck, dude?

Further, where was the ACLU when the Duke students were falsely accused of rape? Where were they in demanding Mike Nifong be prosecuted after prosecutorial misconduct were found?

Well, here they were.

[Link: dukechronicle.com...]

The fact that the organization who demands openness from everyone else except themselves speaks volumes.

Um, do they demand that other non-profits not disallow their board members from saying negative things? Because you're painting a rather goddamn broad brush right there.

I understand your idealization of the ACLU.

Why are you making up things about me? What the hell, dude? I do not understand why you feel the need to do that.

Please show me anywhere I've 'idealized' them. FYI, calling a group 'fanatical' normally does not imply you idealize them.

That doesn't make them perfect.

So this does mean you won't straightforwardly say whatever it is you're trying to say?

Why? I don't get it. I don't get why you have to make your argument through innuendo and painting me as holding positions I don't.

researchok Thu, Mar 31, 2011 8:17:52pm

They finally issued a statement.

They refused to get involved at the time.

Obdicut Thu, Mar 31, 2011 8:19:40pm

re: #38 researchok

They finally issued a statement.

They refused to get involved at the time.

So what? Please state what on earth you're trying to prove with that example. Otherwise I'm left guessing.

The ACLU doesn't get involved in a lot of cases of prosecutorial misconduct; why is their lack of involvement in that one special?

researchok Thu, Mar 31, 2011 8:22:45pm

I'm not trying to say anything. I am saying the ACLU is not above or beyond questioning or criticism.

They have a political agenda, will seek out high profile cases (as if Rush Limbaugh needed ACLU lawyers, etc). That isn't a secret.

Prononymous, rogue demon hunter Thu, Mar 31, 2011 8:23:51pm

What agenda? You failed to elucidate that point.

researchok Thu, Mar 31, 2011 8:24:06pm

re: #39 Obdicut

So what? Please state what on earth you're trying to prove with that example. Otherwise I'm left guessing.

The ACLU doesn't get involved in a lot of cases of prosecutorial misconduct; why is their lack of involvement in that one special?

I'm saying they are very selective in which cases they get involved. These students were being railroaded and needed the ACLU and at the time, they refused to get involved.

Obdicut Thu, Mar 31, 2011 8:24:19pm

re: #40 researchok

I'm not trying to say anything. I am saying the ACLU is not above or beyond questioning or criticism.

Nobody said they weren't. At all. So that's kind of weird to bust out with.

They have a political agenda, will seek out high profile cases (as if Rush Limbaugh needed ACLU lawyers, etc). That isn't a secret.

What is that agenda? That is what I'm asking and you're refusing to answer. What is their agenda that is not 'let's defend us the shit out of civil rights'?

Obdicut Thu, Mar 31, 2011 8:27:05pm

re: #42 researchok

I'm saying they are very selective in which cases they get involved. These students were being railroaded and needed the ACLU and at the time, they refused to get involved.

Yes, they are selective about the cases. They pick those that they feel have a strong civil rights aspect to them. Prosecutorial misconduct sucks, but it's widespread. If anything, not getting involved there is a counterproof to your argument, since it was a high profile case.

I really don't understand what you think you gain from refusing to actually talk clearly about this.

researchok Thu, Mar 31, 2011 8:27:45pm

re: #43 Obdicut

Nobody said they weren't. At all. So that's kind of weird to bust out with.

What is that agenda? That is what I'm asking and you're refusing to answer. What is their agenda that is not 'let's defend us the shit out of civil rights'?

Their legal agenda is not blind. They tend to support more progressive ideologies.

Now, I have no problem with that. Every organization stakes out political/moral/ethical positions.

I just wish they were more upfront about that.

Obdicut Thu, Mar 31, 2011 8:30:34pm

re: #45 researchok

Their legal agenda is not blind. They tend to support more progressive ideologies.

Only to the extend that 'progressive' means supporting civil rights.

I just wish they were more upfront about that.

They are absolutely upfront about it in every way. I have no idea why you think they aren't. They are only too happy to explain their stances on every goddamn issue under the sun.

researchok Thu, Mar 31, 2011 8:32:28pm

re: #44 Obdicut

Yes, they are selective about the cases. They pick those that they feel have a strong civil rights aspect to them. Prosecutorial misconduct sucks, but it's widespread. If anything, not getting involved there is a counterproof to your argument, since it was a high profile case.

I really don't understand what you think you gain from refusing to actually talk clearly about this.

If prosecutorial misconduct were so widespead, I would imagine the ACLU would be all over that rather than providing names and addresses of CIA operatives.

As for the Duke case, many here believe the ACLU refused to get involved because some Duke professors staked out a highly controversial position- that even if the boys were innocent the prosecutions ought to take place.

And what exactly have I not spoken about? Please, be specific.

Obdicut Thu, Mar 31, 2011 8:32:34pm

In the end, in this case, the ACLU are defending a woman who deserves to be defended, on grounds that are very, very worthy.

It's really bizarre to see them accused of 'politicizing' the issue.

researchok Thu, Mar 31, 2011 8:33:41pm

See Durham in Wonderland.

Obdicut Thu, Mar 31, 2011 8:35:24pm

re: #47 researchok

If prosecutorial misconduct were so widespead, I would imagine the ACLU would be all over that rather than providing names and addresses of CIA operatives.

They do quite a bit about prosecutorial misconduct, but they generally prefer to stick to firm civil rights and constitutional issues. A lot of prosecutorial misconduct doesn't intersect perfectly with that; there are constitutional ways to be a jackass.

Also, it's possible for a group to do more than one thing at once, which is nifty.

As for the Duke case, many here believe the ACLU refused to get involved because some Duke professors staked out a highly controversial position- that even if the boys were innocent the prosecutions ought to take place.

Why on earth do they believe that? What connection is there between the Duke professors and the ACLU, especially the Duke professors taking a stance that's antithetical to the ACLU?

And what exactly have I not spoken about? Please, be specific.

You have finally said that you think that the ACLU supports a progressive agenda. It took you a hell of a long time to manage to make that clear.

It's also incorrect.

researchok Thu, Mar 31, 2011 8:37:49pm

re: #48 Obdicut

In the end, in this case, the ACLU are defending a woman who deserves to be defended, on grounds that are very, very worthy.

It's really bizarre to see them accused of 'politicizing' the issue.

Yes, when the ACLU is implying the state is going after all pregnant women, that's not politicizing the case at all.

I'm sure you can point to hundreds of cases where the state of Indiana has done just that.

Obdicut Thu, Mar 31, 2011 8:38:42pm

re: #49 researchok

See Durham in Wonderland.

Um, what am I supposed to read the blog of the guy who spoked at the panel sponsored by the ACLU to discuss the case?

He includes blurbs by the ACLU for his book about the case, and I'm not finding, in all the mentions of the ACLU on his blog, a single bit of criticism.

Obdicut Thu, Mar 31, 2011 8:42:32pm

re: #51 researchok

Yes, when the ACLU is implying the state is going after all pregnant women, that's not politicizing the case at all.

The ACLU is implying that this logic could be extended to go after all pregnant women. Because it could. She didn't kill the child in a suicide attempt.

I'm sure you can point to hundreds of cases where the state of Indiana has done just that.

The point the ACLU was making, which is puzzling for you not to get, is that this could expand in that direction. A little while ago, it would have seemed rather inconceivable that this case could come about, a woman arrested for in these circumstances. They are pointing out what could come down the line.

There was another case, recently, of a woman being forced by her doctor-- and a judge-- to stay in the hospital to get bed-rest, on the grounds (mistaken) that it'd reduce the chance of miscarriage. She miscarried anyway. That is another case of a woman's rights being restricted because she was pregnant, for the sake of the fetus.

researchok Thu, Mar 31, 2011 8:43:09pm

re: #50 Obdicut

Why on earth do they believe that? What connection is there between the Duke professors and the ACLU, especially the Duke professors taking a stance that's antithetical to the ACLU?

If the Duke professors were so antithetical to the ACLU, why didn't the ACLU pick up the case?

They do quite a bit about prosecutorial misconduct, but they generally prefer to stick to firm civil rights and constitutional issues. A lot of prosecutorial misconduct doesn't intersect perfectly with that; there are constitutional ways to be a jackass.

Prosecutorial misconduct isn't a civil rights issue? Are you kidding?

Obdi, we don't see the ACLU in the same way.

It's that simple.

researchok Thu, Mar 31, 2011 8:44:27pm

re: #53 Obdicut

The ACLU is implying that this logic could be extended to go after all pregnant women. Because it could. She didn't kill the child in a suicide attempt.

The point the ACLU was making, which is puzzling for you not to get, is that this could expand in that direction. A little while ago, it would have seemed rather inconceivable that this case could come about, a woman arrested for in these circumstances. They are pointing out what could come down the line.

There was another case, recently, of a woman being forced by her doctor-- and a judge-- to stay in the hospital to get bed-rest, on the grounds (mistaken) that it'd reduce the chance of miscarriage. She miscarried anyway. That is another case of a woman's rights being restricted because she was pregnant, for the sake of the fetus.

Was the ACLU involved in those cases? I'd like to see how they presented those cases.

Obdicut Thu, Mar 31, 2011 8:48:32pm

re: #54 researchok

If the Duke professors were so antithetical to the ACLU, why didn't the ACLU pick up the case?

What? That doesn't make a goddamn bit of sense. The ACLU didn't pick up the case. You alleged that was because of some stance by Duke professors. I pointed out that the stance by the Duke professors wouldn't have swayed the ACLU since it's not in line with the values.

You have provided no proof, no reason, why the ACLU would have not taken the case for any particular reason.

Prosecutorial misconduct isn't a civil rights issue? Are you kidding?

No, I'm not. There are constitutional ways for prosecutors to be jackasses. Which I already said.

Your only argument appears to be that if the ACLU doesn't pick up every single case that involves civil rights, they're somehow imbalanced.

Obdi, we don't see the ACLU in the same way.

It's that simple.

No, it's really not. Your belief that the ACLU supports progressives is ignoring something very obvious: The ACLU supports an extreme version of civil rights. To the extent that progressives do as well, the ACLU supports them.

In addition, you have insinuated all kinds of untrue stuff about me, like I think that it's good for people to be put at risk of death and that I 'idealize' the ACLU. You have not responded to my requests for you to substantiate those allegations. That is a very poor way to make an argument.

researchok Thu, Mar 31, 2011 8:59:08pm

The ACLU supports extreme version of civil rights when there is a substantial platform for them.

As I noted, Rush Limbaugh could afford the best lawyers in the land- yet for some reason, the ACLU inserted themselves in this very high profile (and low level) drug case. In the great scheme of things, Limbaugh isn't exactly a Columbian drug lord.

Further, I am not insinuating anything. I can only draw conclusions from your words. You have yet to explicitly criticize the ACLU for the John Adams project (a project they have since ratcheted down and refocused since they busted). Your defense of the ACLU hasn't acknowledged criticism of the organization might be valid at times.

By way of observation, even a lowly behaviorist such as myself can recognize idealization.

As I said, we just don't see the ACLU in the same way.

Obdicut Thu, Mar 31, 2011 9:03:05pm

re: #57 researchok

I can only draw conclusions from your words.

Nothing I said should have lead to the allegations you made. Nothing.

You have yet to explicitly criticize the ACLU for the John Adams project (a project they have since ratcheted down and refocused since they busted).

I don't know enough about it.

Your defense of the ACLU hasn't acknowledged criticism of the organization might be valid at times.

In fact, yes, I did.

You ignored it.

I even criticized them myself, calling them fanatical.

You ignored that.

You're not even really having a conversation with me. You're pretending I hold different views than I am.

I'm not sure how being a behaviorist applies to that.

researchok Thu, Mar 31, 2011 9:06:52pm

OK. You're right.

Clearly, I am incapable of making a cogent argument.

Obdi, I have always said I hold you in high regard. That has not changed. I continue to wish you well.

Obdicut Thu, Mar 31, 2011 9:07:45pm

re: #59 researchok

I'm not saying you're not capable of making a cogent argument. I have no idea why you respond in this manner. It's pretty weird.

researchok Thu, Mar 31, 2011 9:14:00pm

re: #60 Obdicut

I'm not saying you're not capable of making a cogent argument. I have no idea why you respond in this manner. It's pretty weird.

Perhaps- just perhaps- you might consider taking off the ideological blinders you wear just for a bit.

You are too smart- and intelligent- not to understand what I'm saying.

You once remarked to me there is no 'middle ground' or compromise in ideological matters. You might consider rethinking that. The oyster you seek is a lot bigger than you can imagine.

I am not your adversary. Just the opposite in fact.

Obdicut Thu, Mar 31, 2011 9:19:38pm

re: #61 researchok

Perhaps- just perhaps- you might consider taking off the ideological blinders you wear just for a bit.

Oh geez. As I said: you're pretending I hold positions i don't. I have no idea why you do this.

You are too smart- and intelligent- not to understand what I'm saying.

You're saying the ACLU has a progressive agenda. I disagree. I do think the ACLU goes too far in a number of areas; I'm sure they'd say they need to go that far, because of the eternal pressure against civil rights. Anyhoo.

You once remarked to me there is no 'middle ground' or compromise in ideological matters.

That really doesn't sound like me. I highly doubt you're replicating I said with any degree of accuracy.

I am not your adversary. Just the opposite in fact.

In this case, where you are asserting that 'all parties' politicized the issue, I'm your argumentative adversary, because you're dead wrong.

Other than that, I don't really think in terms of 'adversary'.

However, I do think you shouldn't claim the whole "I'm a behaviorist" authority as often as you do. Psychology over the interwebs is a poor, spavined thing.

researchok Thu, Mar 31, 2011 9:28:56pm

I don't refer to my profession all that much in here, notwithstanding the reality I make a good living at it and have for a number of years.

We've come full circle. I believe the matter is being politicized and you don't.

I was glad to read your expanded remarks on the ACLU. We are probably in agreement on similar issues. As I noted, I do support much, but not all, of what they do.

As far as my recollection goes, I'll stand corrected.

In any event, it's late and I've got a full day tomorrow.

Gus Thu, Mar 31, 2011 9:50:14pm

This is what a country run by Republicans looks like.

RogueOne Fri, Apr 1, 2011 6:09:24am

re: #64 Gus 802

This is what a country run by Republicans looks like.

Except this has nothing to do with religion and the marion county prosecutor is a democrat. Other than that you have a valid point.//

I feel bad for this lady but she ate a bunch of rat poison because her boyfriend left her. She obviously has some serious issues but that doesn't resolve her of her actions.

2 local links to the story:
Indy woman, 34, faces murder, feticide charges
[Link: www.indystar.com...]

Charges filed against mom who ate poison
[Link: www.indystar.com...]

BARACK THE VOTE Fri, Apr 1, 2011 6:33:31am

re: #65 RogueOne

Except this has nothing to do with religion and the marion county prosecutor is a democrat. Other than that you have a valid point.//

I feel bad for this lady but she ate a bunch of rat poison because her boyfriend left her. She obviously has some serious issues but that doesn't resolve her of her actions.

Rogue, do you honestly think this woman should be prosecuted? She's mentally ill. Not only that, prosecuting her is the thin edge of the wedge opening the door to reducing female autonomy in all sorts of ways. Prosecuting her for this, imo, is saying that her life is less valuable than the fetus--and that leads to treating all pregnant women as fetal containers rather than persons.

RogueOne Fri, Apr 1, 2011 6:53:04am

re: #66 iceweasel

Rogue, do you honestly think this woman should be prosecuted? She's mentally ill. Not only that, prosecuting her is the thin edge of the wedge opening the door to reducing female autonomy in all sorts of ways. Prosecuting her for this, imo, is saying that her life is less valuable than the fetus--and that leads to treating all pregnant women as fetal containers rather than persons.

I think it's a tough call and I'm almost always instinctively inclined to disagree with prosecutions. I'm sort of on the fence with this one. I happen to be a fan of the ACLU but if she's mentally ill, and I'm willing to say she was just based on what happened, then that's something to bring up during the trial. Last week a man diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenic was arrested for planting a bomb in a federal building in Michigan. I don't know how we go about deciding that some unbalanced people should be charged but others not. I would hate to see her have to do time in order to get the help she needs but she did kill her baby. (back and forth, back and forth)

Like I said, it's a tough call and if I were the prosecutor I don't know how I would deal with it. I just wanted to point out that this isn't a religious/political party prosecution. Hopefully they can work out a deal where she gets help and the state feels their job requirements are satisfied. OTOH, if the prosecutor decides he wants her in prison for an extended period of time then I would definitely agree that's overkill.

I used a whole lot of words to say "I don't know".

HappyWarrior Fri, Apr 1, 2011 6:56:35am

I think she needs psychiatric help more than anything. Just my judgment from reading about the case.

BARACK THE VOTE Fri, Apr 1, 2011 6:58:37am

re: #67 RogueOne

I would hate to see her have to do time in order to get the help she needs but she did kill her baby. (back and forth, back and forth).

But that's the issue. The C-Section and death were unintended consequences of her attempt to kill-- herself.

Last week a man diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenic was arrested for planting a bomb in a federal building in Michigan.

Obviously this is different; the intent to harm others was certainly there. She didn't eat rat poison in an attempt to miscarry.
I'm surprised, given your own strong stances about civil liberties and prosecutorial misconduct, that you can't see how this would set a precedent like the ones mentioned above, where pregnant women are forced to bed rest or even jail (it's been proposed for drug users) until they give birth.

Also, I find it sort of baffling that a suicide attempt is something that you can be prosecuted for in general.

RogueOne Fri, Apr 1, 2011 7:09:59am

re: #66 iceweasel

I had to go back and check, you're right they did charge her with Murder. I think that's a mistake and part of a bigger pattern where prosecutors pile on the harshest charges they can think of in order to force the defendant into a deal. I'm always going to disagree with that sort of tactic. Unless there's something we haven't been told through the other press stories I think it's pretty clear her intent was to kill herself.

Lidane Fri, Apr 1, 2011 7:10:28am

re: #4 Floral Giraffe

Wow. I would be banned for typing what I think.

Same here. I'm going to keep my thoughts to myself.

celticdragon Fri, Apr 1, 2011 7:22:05am

re: #67 RogueOne

I don't see this as a tough call at all. This is religiously based societal patriarchy that is using the power of the state to crush a mentally ill woman.

It is sickening, and it is antithetical to any notion of freedom and personal autonomy.

elizajane Fri, Apr 1, 2011 7:42:50am

I went to the two stories in the Indianapolis newspaper linked by RogueOne. Judging by the comments and their updings, the public there is firmly on the side of the prosecutor. In Afghanistan, they'd be joining in to stone this woman.

So lawmakers (and prosecutors) continue to see how far they can push the limits on the anti-choice agenda. I still think it's partly an elaborate distraction from the Republicans' inability to do anything useful about jobs and the economy. And I think they're going too far with this case and it won't stand up in court. But as the mother of three daughters, I shudder to watch the country stumbling towards a vision of women that seems inspired by The Handmaid's Tale. Which was supposed to be a dystopian impossibility, not a prediction of the future!

I also want to quote for agreement calchortus's comment above -- full fetal personhood should mean that if a woman dies in childbirth, the resulting baby should be charged with manslaughter.

What, me worry? Fri, Apr 1, 2011 9:10:15am

Kudos to Celtic Dragon for a great topic, article and so many responses!

I agree that most people don't understand mental illness. Folks generally think of it as a thing you can "just get over" or change your habits "if really you want". Not so.

The truth is, you can't separate it from how you would treat someone with a physical illness. If a woman is bedridden with a terminal illness and gives birth to a child who then dies because of some issue relating to the mother's illness, is it different? It truly is not.

People can't control cancer nor can they control clinical depression without medical intervention. It really is as simple as that.

APox Fri, Apr 1, 2011 11:38:25am

This is fucking stupid.

So, had the baby lived, would the mother have been jailed as well? For maybe a charge of "fetus endangerment"?

Her attempted suicide spurred on the pre-mature c-section but I don't really see how that's any different from a baby being born with fetal alcohol syndrome or any other litany of pre-birth occurrences that affect a baby after birth.

I guess what we need to do in this country, and I'm sure Republicans can find funding for this by cutting anything involving clean air, journalism, schools, or worker's rights; we can make these pods for any woman found pregnant. And then we lock them in there, and they can't do anything but eat what the state tells them to eat for nine months after which point they are relieved of duty.

wrenchwench Fri, Apr 1, 2011 12:19:11pm

re: #73 elizajane

I also want to quote for agreement calchortus's comment above -- full fetal personhood should mean that if a woman dies in childbirth, the resulting baby should be charged with manslaughter.

I agree also, and take the logic further. Jamesfirecat has repeatedly elucidated his position by asking, "Should another being be allowed to use a woman's organs without her permission?" That reminds me of a coworker I had in 1980 who was pregnant. She said she felt as though she had been taken hostage and drugged. A fetus changes its mother's body chemistry a great deal. One could see the fetus as a kidnapper, unless it resides in the womb with permission.

calochortus Fri, Apr 1, 2011 2:12:22pm

re: #76 wrenchwench

Yes, the invasion of the mommy-snatchers.

When I was pregnant with my second child, it occurred to me that the fetus is a parasite. This is a concept I rarely bring up because for some reason it upsets people. Now, my children were very much wanted and planned-and even though they are grown I would still walk through fire for them, but the practical relationship is pretty much one way while in utero, and for some time afterward.

Pregnancy is very important for the continuation of the species (and an individual's genes) so there is a strong drive to reproduce, but the fetus's interests are not identical with the mother's. I suspect that humans create an exaggerated myth of mother-love under all circumstances precisely because it is a somewhat fraught relationship.

webevintage Fri, Apr 1, 2011 7:06:07pm

The Handmaiden's Tale is a work of fiction...right?

b_sharp Fri, Apr 1, 2011 7:11:57pm

re: #31 Romantic Heretic

Thank you.

As some one who suffers from depression it's good to hear some one who doesn't spout the "Oh, just pull yourself together!" line. Having tried to take my own life in the past, and sometimes being so depressed that I was nearly catatonic it's a relief to hear people that don't hold that against me. Because I have.

Depression, all mental illnesses, are like cancer in another way. They are never cured. They only go into remission. You live every day with the fear it will come back, and it will kill you next time.

Me too.

RogueOne Sat, Apr 2, 2011 6:31:16am

Update from local press:

Charges in death of fetus should be dropped, experts say
[Link: www.indystar.com...]

Romantic Heretic Sun, Apr 3, 2011 10:17:02am

re: #80 RogueOne

Not gonna happen.

This would amount to the people behind this saying, "We were wrong." Which they aren't going to do.

The truest sign of a True Believer is that they are never, ever wrong about anything.

Auto

This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top