Thank you for reading thecheers.org's Opinion articles.

Utah: Charges of Fetal Homocide

 article about Utah: Charges of Fetal Homocide
2004-03-23 20:03:36


Rowland first suspected a problem with her babies' health in December, when she hadn't felt the babies move. She then sought medical help.

The doctors determined that the babies' condition was deteriorating. They warned her that the babies needed to be born immediately to ensure their survival. Rowland refused.

Over the course of several weeks Rowland made more visits to Salt Lake City area hospitals. Each time medical staff urged her to allow a C-section. But Rowland persisted in her refusal. According to various accounts, Rowland did not want to be "cut like that," because it would "ruin her life."

The twins finally arrived on January 13, one live, one stillborn. Now Rowland has been charged with criminal homocide for her "depraved indifference to human life."

But given our laws governing abortion, some argue that this action is unfair.

In the landmark 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision, the Supreme Court ruled that abortion cannot be restricted for any reason in the first 6 months of pregnancy. In the last 3 months abortion cannot be restricted if it affects the life or health of the mother.

Twelve weeks after conception.

Amazingly, the Court defined health to include the general well-being of the mother. This definition, which includes psychological health, is so broad that a 1982 Senate Judiciary committee concluded:

No significant legal barriers of any kind whatsoever exist in the United States for a woman to obtain an abortion for any reason during any stage of her pregnancy.

Here's where it gets confusing. Rowland could have side-stepped her legal problems had she only found a psychologist willing to declare her pregnancy a risk to her psychological health. Sound farfetched? Maybe. But Rowland's attorney revealed that her client has a history of mental health problems.

There is a more troubling aspect to this case. Consider a very different route Rowland could have taken. Suppose at almost 6 months, or about 24 weeks, of her babies' development, Rowland had decided that the babies weren't the gender she wanted.

Twenty weeks after conception.

Twenty-four weeks is significant for two reasons. First, at 24 weeks of development a baby has about an 80% chance of survival (source: If You are Pregnant: Information on Fetal Development, Abortion and Alternatives, Minnesota Department of Health Web Site). Second, 24 weeks is just at the end of the time when abortions cannot be restricted.

Rowland could have aborted her babies for no better reason than gender-discrimination. And nothing could have prevented her from doing so.

Is gender-discrimination more legitimate than a desire to avoid the scars of surgery?

In case you think my comparison of abortion to Rowland's actions are much ado about nothing, consider the views of Marguerite Driessen, law professor at Brigham Young University.

Driessen believes this case could have a chilling affect on abortion rights. She says, "It's very troubling to have somebody come in and say we're going to charge this mother for murder because we don't like the choices she made."

What an absurd situation we find ourselves in. If a mother does not want her baby, and the medical community affirms her choice, taking the baby's life is OK. But if the mother takes it upon herself to take the life of her baby, it's a criminal act.

Let me be perfectly clear. In no way am I attempting to justify Rowland's actions. On the contrary, I am trying to show the contradictory ways our legal system treats the preborn. We can't seem to decide how many rights the unborn really have. And so we tie ourselves in philosophic knots. On one level we grant absolute rights to the mother. But on a deeper, more intuitive level, we seem to know that a mother's rights do not always trump those of her baby's.

I believe we have come to this point in our double-minded treatment of the unborn, because we are unwilling to acknowledge one thing -- that the unborn have rights just like the rest of us. The freedom to enjoy "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" belongs to all of us, not just those of us lucky enough to be born.

The Cheers, (c) Rob Favero (http://pepe-day-2-day.blogspot.com), All rights reserved.





have your say


more in Opinion
WHY DOES AMERICA WANT A WOMAN PRESIDENT?

There is not anything a man can do that a woman cannot do. We have proved this time and time again and will continue all the way to the White House. Right?

The story of Emperor Augustus

Julius Caesar is very well known in the world, his history, his deeds and wars. The month July was named after him, but how many people know about the Caesar Augustus who had the following month named after him? In many ways, Augustus left a deeper imprint on the world than Julius did. And despite being a total out and out imperialist, he understood the concept of institutions and drove it forward.

Is money the only difference between journalists and bloggers?

Bloggers versus journalists? There is this issue which I keep on stumbling over and which seems to be agitating so many people who are in the publishing business. There seem to be two camps, the first camp is the journalist camp and the second seems to be the bloggers camp. And boyo, do these two camps fight or do they?

Reality Bites

How much of our live's can we change, and how much must we except as unchangeable?

WHO WOULD GOD CHOOSE FOR PRESIDENT OF THE U.S. OF AMERICA?

We must admit we are at some serious crossroads in our lives in America. Who can we trust to lead us to a better place?

thecheers.org

Welcome to TheCheers! We've been around for a long time now, since 2004, publishing articles by people from all over the world. Roughly 300 people from 30 different countries have written for us over the years. Should you want to become a volunteer contributor, be sure to contact us!

Educational resources
Entertainment Blogs
get in touch

You can contact us via The Cheers Facebook page or The Cheers NEW Twitter account.