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
'Belonging' in the Land Down-Under

After 200 years or so of European settlement in the Land Down-Under many Australians assume that this country, in comparison with others, is one lacking in both culture and history. What many dont realize however is that Australia has claim to a unique culture that precedes the arrival of Captain Cooks First Fleet by 40,000 years and more.





Mud-slinging or Issues?

The election of 2004 is now underway in the United States and the negative ads have already started.

Religion a blessing or a curse?
Rowland

I will always remember something my former religion teacher said: Religion is a human beings yearning to attach to something. But is religion a blessing or a curse? Now that's a question.

Work That Constitution, Baby!

The sudden interest in gay marriage in the U.S. is completely ridiculous and mostly diversionary in nature for President Bush. I understand that to the President and his cronies a happily confused and glaringly stupid voting populace is ideal for reelection and the passage of restrictive laws. But really, do we have to create such turmoil among a group that is finally celebrating SOME acceptance in the Land of the Free? What I propose to do here is offer some solutions to the problem with gays in the U.S. and their nagging, incessant need to celebrate unions with the people they love, provide legal and financial benefits to their spouses, and grant them equal rights and freedoms as guaranteed in the Constitution. The Old Constitution Being an entertainer, Im practically prohibited by law from having problems with gay people. But lets look at some scenarios anyway. If all gay men disappeared, there would be a sudden decrease in movies, plays, circuses, television shows & entertainment agencies for me to enjoy and work within. Id never have any good looking clothes to wear on stage and my hair would always be a disaster. At the absolute least, Id never be able to watch Queer Eye again and that alone would be catastrophic. And who the HELL would they get to be the center square on Hollywood Squares? Take all the lesbians out of the equation and there could be some improvements. Without them wed have no Rosie ODonnell or Ellen DeGeneres on our screens, no K.D. Lang or Melissa Etheridge music and no Xena, Warrior Princess and hot girl-on-girl action in our porno - WAIT! Forget I said anything!

Muslims Killing Muslims

References for this article have been made again and again from the book "Ibn-Khaldoon History". On each page, it describes the killing of Muslims by Muslims.

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.