Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Rights and Liberties

Is a Stillbirth an Act of Murder? Maryland Law Says So

By Lindsay Beyerstein, In These Times. Posted August 17, 2007.


Maryland’s Viable Fetus Act displays the coercive potential of legislation that gives fetuses rights at the expense of women.
Advertisement

Christy Lynn Freeman, a 37-year-old, Ocean City, Md., woman, was recently charged with murder after delivering a stillborn child under Maryland's as-yet-untested Viable Fetus Act of 2005.

Worcester County prosecutor Joel J. Todd charged Freeman with murder and a district court judge held her without bail for allegedly performing her own late-term abortion. Though these charges were eventually dropped, Freeman's case illustrates the coercive potential of legislation that gives fetuses rights at the expense of women.

Freeman arrived at Atlantic General Hospital by ambulance on July 26, bleeding profusely. She denied that she had ever been pregnant, but doctors found a placenta and an umbilical cord inside her body. Later, she admitted that she had given birth to a stillborn fetus at home.

After questioning Freeman at the hospital, police searched her home and found the recently stillborn infant and three older sets of fetal remains in and around her property.

The medical examiner's preliminary report confirmed Freeman's story that the 26-week-old fetus was born dead. Nevertheless, Freeman was charged with first- and second-degree murder and manslaughter for allegedly inducing the stillbirth.

Maryland's Viable Fetus Act provides for prosecution for the murder of a viable fetus if the perpetrator "intended to cause the death of the viable fetus, intended to cause serious physical injury to the viable fetus, or wantonly or recklessly disregarded the likelihood that the person's actions would cause the death of or serious physical injury to the viable fetus."

The prosecutor maintained that Freeman's self-abortion "wantonly or recklessly disregarded" the possibility that her actions would kill the fetus.

However, even if Freeman induced a self-abortion, the law explicitly exempts pregnant women who kill their own fetuses. "Nothing in this section applies to an act or failure to act of a pregnant woman with regard to her own fetus," the statute reads.

On July 31, the authorities announced that Freeman admitted to killing at least one live infant that she delivered in secret several years ago.

Prosecutors dismissed the murder charges for the stillbirth on August 2. She is now facing ordinary murder charges for killing a live infant. Although prosecutor Joel Todd told reporters that Freeman was being charged for killing an infant born alive in 2003, the charging document says that the infant died in 2004. (Todd's spokesperson could not be reached for comment.)

Thirty-six states have some kind of fetal homicide law on the books. While Maryland's law applies only to viable fetuses, at least 15 states extend fetal homicide protection from conception. In state legislatures around the country, anti-abortionists have fought for laws that recognize the killing of fetuses as criminal acts on the grounds that full-fledged personhood begins in utero.

Freeman isn't the only woman to face murder charges for a pregnancy loss. Theresa Lee Hernandez of Oklahoma has spent the last three years in jail awaiting trial for "murder" after a late-term pregnancy loss. Her son was stillborn at 32 weeks gestation. When the son tested positive for methamphetamine, Hernandez was charged with murder.

In June, National Advocates for Pregnant Women sent an open letter to Oklahoma District Attorney David Prater, urging him to drop the charges against Hernandez. Signatories included the Oklahoma State Medical Association and the America Public Health Association. Prater issued a statement that he had no intention of dropping the charges.

In the wake of the Freeman case, some abortion foes are calling for Maryland to eliminate the maternal exemption. An editorial in the August 7 Washington Times lamented the Maryland law's exclusion for pregnant women as evidence of the "lock of abortionism on American government and a reflection of the continued unprotection of the unborn."

It would have been fitting if Christy Freeman's case had been the first legal test of the Viable Fetus Act. Proponents of the legislation insist that these bills protect women from abuse, rather than restrict access to abortion. Yet, Freeman's case shows how prosecutors can use such laws to punish a "misbehaving" pregnant woman and criminalize a kind of abortion in the process.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: law, stillbirth, maryland, fetus, viable fetus act

Lindsay Beyerstein is a New York writer blogging at majikthise.typepad.com

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Handmaid's tale
Posted by: El Hombre Malo on Aug 17, 2007 2:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When I first watched the (mediocre) film "The Handmaid's tale" I knew little about puritanism and evangelical church.

But since I became aware of its existence and the kind of laws they demand from society, I can't help but see how similar the world is becoming to that religious dystopia.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The Handmaids Tale/West Posted by: boydranchitos
» RE: Handmaid's tale Posted by: wireup
» RE: Handmaid's tale Posted by: Bbear41
» RE: Handmaid's tale Posted by: jmoore
» RE: Handmaid's tale Posted by: 1gma
Juridicalism
Posted by: talkville on Aug 17, 2007 3:19 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Assigning Civil Rights to a fetus, still part of a female will make the female a Slave and Public Property. Will the state apply sanctions to males who masturbate, thereby "murdering" a potential human being?

Plato once spoke of the Republic, governed by 'the "Philosophers". The 'philosophers' that currently govern this republic are deaf, are dumb and are blind.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» And Plato was jesting. Posted by: Sojourner
» RE: And Plato was jesting. Posted by: talkville
» RE: Juridicalism Posted by: 1gma
» RE: Juridicalism Posted by: talkville
Religious Right and liberals!
Posted by: Conservasaurus on Aug 17, 2007 3:58 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Are we to believe that a women that kills her perfectly healthy child isn't guilty???..and WHY???? who cares if an inch of skin seperates the child from the larger world..Liberals really buy into this??.. it's a womens right to kill her child just before it's "born"...???

What if a man punched the women in the stomach at 9 months and the child died becasue of this..would he be guilty of only assaulting the women???

The religious right is a crazy group but anyone that buys into this is even worse!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Protection of unborn
Posted by: peacemama on Aug 17, 2007 4:10 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pro Choicers have never been able to answer this question. Why do we have laws that limit or not allow actions which might harm a developing fetus. Namely alcohol and drug intake. If we did not acknowledge that the fetus has rights of protection then we would allow women to drink. take drugs, etc. A women who takes drugs and harms her developing child is guilty of something.

I am not a conservative right wing right to lifer and I have issues with some life to right positions. On the other hand I have an issue with my sisters who say they have a right to an abortion simply because they have a right over their bodies. Sometimes it just boils down to pure selfishness. There is a moral question to having an abortion which some refuse to deal with.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Protection of unborn Posted by: luzmejor
» I think you have a point. Posted by: mjabele
» Really? Posted by: mjabele
» You are incorrect. Posted by: mjabele
» RE: Protection of unborn Posted by: talkville
» RE: Protection of unborn Posted by: badkitty
luzmejor
Posted by: luzmejor on Aug 17, 2007 4:15 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is just another dreary chapter in the long history of abuse of women, and now, even children, who are already victims of sexual abuse.

The "life at conception" theory is clearly an attempt to legislate an obligatory preference for only one religious belief. It is a great injustice to women who cannot afford to buy contraceptives or to have a sterilization procedure. It definitely contradicts our claims of being a democracy.

It would make criminals of all females who happen to suffer from what that church prefers to call a "miscarriage," rather than a spontaneous abortion, or to violated children who seldom realize they are pregnant at all.

Nobody should ever be forced to produce the child of a rapist. That would be too much like requiring that any burglar or robber (who violently entered your house) be given your further personal services along with your family inheritance.

This law is actually prescribing and enforcing an unjust form of marriage without consent. But what can we expect from government that approves of torture and killing as an exercise of their separate and particular right to power over the lives of everyone else?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: luzmejor Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: luzmejor Posted by: Ames
The Woman Needs Help
Posted by: EJW on Aug 17, 2007 4:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is not a test case for anything. This women has some serious problems and needs help. Doesn't anyone see this?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Woman Needs Help Posted by: luzmejor
» RE: The Woman Needs Help Posted by: yellow
» RE: The Woman Needs Help Posted by: VZEQICVA
Quite a cause
Posted by: H_H on Aug 17, 2007 6:46 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So Lindsay wants to take-up the cause of defending this delicate, sweet woman.

All she wanted to do was start a collection of her own fetuses! Is that SO wrong!?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What's in a name?
Posted by: Mamarianne on Aug 17, 2007 6:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When the anti-abortionists adopted the name "pro-life," they took control of the debate. Even though most anti-abortionists do not support policies that would make the lives of children and parents better, they declare themselves on the side of familes. Abortion rights supporters took on the label of pro-choice which is just a little too complex for the headlines. After all, it suggests a woman can choose to carry a fetus or to end the pregnancy. I believe that an effort should be made to label abortion opposition as "forced pregnancy" legislation. It has always amazed me that conservatives, who want government out of their lives in almost every other situation, support the intrusion of the government into what is an agonizing personal decision for women and families.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» "Forced childbirth" Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
» RE: What's in a name? Posted by: morticia
» RE: What's in a name? Posted by: babs
The blindness of zealotry
Posted by: NthnBrazil on Aug 17, 2007 7:00 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reading the above comments is an exercise in frustration for those who don't hold a "right vs. wrong" view on abortion law in general. Is it not possible that there are certain behaviors regarding the unborn we as a society would like to have laws controlling? Is it peoples' belief in all cases that there should be no consequences for harm done to a fetus at any stage of development under any circumstances?

We have here a women with 4 sets of fetal remains in her house & RV, the most recent quoted in this article at 26 weeks old (very beginning of third trimester) but in other sources was reported as 30 - 36 weeks old (nearer full-term). She has confessed to allowing one of the prior children die by drowning in a toilet and shown little to no remorse. She had a home and a job in a vacation community, a live-in boyfriend, and 4 grown children. And with these facts in place, the comments focus on victims of abuse (of which there is no indication here), the irrational protection of undeveloped ovums (which none of these 4 remains could be described as) and that Christy Freeman is at worst "goofy".

If there ever was a case where a law allowing for some consequence for disregarding the welfare of a near-term fetus, this is (if proven) the very one. And yet the discourse is as shrill as can be.

Full disclosure - I think of myself as "pro-choice" in that I believe in allowing abortion freely in the 1st & 2nd trimester, with stricter guidelines in the 3rd trimester. I acknowledge that for most pro-choice true believers (i.e. zealots), this is not considered an acceptable state of affairs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Ditto... Posted by: mjabele
» Right on Posted by: H_H
» RE: Right on Posted by: morticia
Amazing...
Posted by: Gisele on Aug 17, 2007 7:11 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that so many see no issue with aborting a "viable" fetus! Viable as in...if separated from it's Mother, and fed...it would live on it's own. Are we really down to this level now?

The woman has 4 living children, and 4 dead one buried in various places on her property. One would think she'd understand what causes pregnancy and use birth control - if that's not a consideration with her, then it's time to get "fixed." Yeah, yeah...I know..it's her body - her choice. Too bad the buried kids didn't have one.

Bleh. Those who can defend this bullsh*t make me sick.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Amazing... Posted by: rgoalierob
» RE: Amazing... Posted by: peacemama
» RE: Amazing... Posted by: babs
» RE: Amazing... Posted by: owleyes
» Based on this position... Posted by: mjabele
WOMEN CHOOSING NOT TO HAVE CHILDREN
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Aug 17, 2007 7:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It doesn't surprise me. All three branches of the government and anyone else who wants to can be involved. "alleged murder of a fetus" ? That's crazy. Women should start demanding their privacy. We are not a public science and sociology experiment. All you do-gooders find another hobby. Stop reading into things that you all know nothing about. It troubles me that the fetus has become a sick fasination. Once it's born no one gives a damn. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I've "had" two. Posted by: mjabele
» RE: WOMEN CHOOSING NOT TO HAVE CHILDREN Posted by: MartianBachelor
THIS ARTICLE SERVES NO PURPOSE AT ALL
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Aug 17, 2007 8:09 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's in poor taste, definitely tells only part of a story and is written by someone who set out to shock people. The author has no right to make haphazard statements based on very little research. Anyone with enough smarts to be able to take on such a complicated set of circumstances isn't jumping at the opportunity be published. 'Alternet' has some outstanding contributors, this isn't one of them. It's just a random collection of quotes and B.S. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pro-choice but not insane
Posted by: lahlah on Aug 17, 2007 9:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This woman is obviously very sick. To use her as an example of why women should not be accused of murder in late-term pregnancy loss is to choose a very poor example. While I am vehemently pro-choice, I sit here 30-weeks pregnant and can't imagine what kind of person would do such things in an age when birth control is so readily available. However, as to the arguments of drug or alcohol use causing a miscarriage, where is the line of culpability of the pregnant woman in terminating her own pregnancy? Women who spontaneously miscarry mulitple times could possibly be convicted as murderers? If a woman ate lunch meat with listeria that caused a late-term pregnancy loss, she should go to jail? Pregnancy is a delicate state and many variables are at work. Culpability of the mother in late-term pregnancy loss is a slippery slope with the potential to turn us into mere gestators rather than human beings with a full suite of rights.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Pro-choice but not insane Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: Pro-choice but not insane Posted by: Amolibri
Mr Bush could be charged...
Posted by: brotherjonah on Aug 17, 2007 9:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A slight question of jurisdiction, but since he claims jurisdiction anywhere in the world for his policies, he sets the precedent.

But according to studies by the Luftwaffe, the RAF, RCAF, USAF and the Japanese Navy from World War 2, statistically one of the big issues with Aerial Bombardment is a huge increase in the number of stillbirths, or "spontaneous abortion" also "miscarriage" due to the intense stress of people dropping bombs all around you.

In fact this was reported on CNN the day before the Inva... oops I mean "Liberation" of Iraq began.

Since a lot of Military decisions originate within the state of Maryland, that would provide even more jurisdiction.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Walking womb
Posted by: Redhead5050 on Aug 17, 2007 11:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I read the Handmaidens Tale several years ago...and this article indeed demonstrates that mindset...and removal of all control that women have over their bodies...We must take up arms against such abuse of women.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is just a test.
Posted by: HoboHomo on Aug 17, 2007 11:20 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
An IQ test designed by HIGHER ALIEN LIFE FORMS.

Those who go along with the tenets of the article, will be VANQUISHED from The Games Arena.

Those who act in outrage against the ideas in the article, receive a rating of "MODERATE".

Those who act in outrage against alternet.org, for even PUBLISHING such a lousy article, receive a rating of "EXCELLENT".

But the very smartest of all, the geniuses (such as "moi"), the ones who receive the very HIGHEST rating ("super-duper-par-excellance") are the ones who see Truth undiminished by any veil:

We are INDEED experimental subjects of a higher, alien life form (NOT out of the Pleiades, however).

And this is an IQ test.

And I came in FIRST this time around.

See ya in the next box! Ta-ta.

--
Zeke Krahlin (Jehovah's Queer Witness)
http://www.gay-bible.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: This is just a test. Posted by: morticia
» RE: This is just a test. Posted by: HoboHomo
» RE: This is just a test. Posted by: morticia
» RE: This is just a test. Posted by: HoboHomo
frank67
Posted by: frank69 on Aug 17, 2007 12:20 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whoever said the holy rollers want to make women slaves was exactly right. These religious nuts want to go backward and treat women like chattel.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: frank67 Posted by: babs
Yes, there are a lot of crazy people in this world...
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Aug 17, 2007 1:11 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As many point out, anyone who has dead fetuses lying around their property has some serious mental issues. It's right up there with eating dead people - psychological help and/or an institution for the seriously disturbed seem to be in order.

The fact that the religious right would seize on this issue really show just how manic they are about it. These are the people who also do all they can to prevent sex education in schools, and who oppose the use of condoms on the basis that 'abortion is just another form of birth control'.

What's really bizzare is that they come across as very sweet, gentle people - but then they open their mouths and out pours incredible hatred and animosity towards anyone who isn't in their little clan - gays, unwed mothers, etc. etc.

They also go around trying to rewrite history - for example, they claim that the Nazis were themselves 'mostly homosexuals' with an 'anti-Christian agenda', when anyone who looks at the history knows that Hitler was supported by the German Christian Church, and that the Pope never condemned Hitler's atrocities. The first group that Hitler persecuted was 'Gay Berlin Culture' The religious right's hatred of homosexuality is quite the mimic of Hitler - not that they'd ever admit that they share a similar vision.

Incidentally, the Nazi cross was not the Indian 'swastika', it was an outgrowth of the original Iron Cross of the Kaisers, with blades attached.

Who was it who said that if fascism ever comes to America, it will be carrying the cross and wrapped in the flag?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

....And The Great "Culture of Life" Con Job Continues
Posted by: CatDad on Aug 17, 2007 1:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The GOP has no intention whatsoever of having their goose that lays the golden egg in the form of Roe v. Wade being overturned....rather, their game plan is to throw their conned "culture of life" voters a bone every few years: banning partial birth abortions....banning abortions in overseas military hospitals...Terri Schiavo....and now making stillbirths murder....WHILE AT THE SAME TIME keeping general access to abortion legal. What a brilliant job...Can't you just hear the crony judges like Alito, Roberts and Scallia laughing their asses off?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here's a serious question...
Posted by: H_H on Aug 17, 2007 2:34 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...so, please don't read this as an attempt to troll.

www.mdcoastdispatch.com/article.php?cid=30&id=1117

The above article says that Freeman confessed to letting a viable infant drown.

Why is it that whenever a woman does something that is clearly wrong, some group of feminists will ALWAYS defend her and make excuses for her?

WHY?

We've seen this happen at Duke U where a woman who OBVIOUSLY lied to the police almost sent 3 people to jail for crimes they most certainly did not commit. Feminists took her side, even after every reasonable person on the planet could see she was lying.

edition.cnn.com/2007/US/law/08/14/preacher.slain/index.html

Recently, in Tennesee, Mary Winkler was on trial for shooting her husband in the back while she was sleeping. She claimed she was abused (without any evidence, I should add). And these uncorroborated claims helped her get a 67 DAY sentence to a prison hospital. For homicide. Feminists, I'm sure, think this is way too harsh.

www.startribune.com/467/story/1347727.html

In minneapolis, feminists were out protesting the punishment of a woman who lied about being raped by police officers.

And so on. I could give you a dozen other examples from the past few years alone.

WHY is it feminists will always always always take a woman's side, even when the woman is OBVIOUSLY in the wrong? How is it that feminists got so far on the wrong side of justice that they can do this, and it's still considered "progressive"?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Hah, I love it... Posted by: H_H
» He loves it! Posted by: morticia
» RE: He loves it! Posted by: H_H
» RE: He loves it not! Posted by: morticia
» SIGH Posted by: H_H
» RE: SIGH Posted by: EJ
» Moan Posted by: morticia
» Recommended reading: Posted by: morticia
» RE: Hah, I love it... Posted by: WyrdSister
golden
Posted by: mortonw on Aug 17, 2007 2:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems to me that the Religious Wrong considers women too stupid to know what is correct.So if a woman cannot support a child financially or emotionaly she should not have the right to choose,but should leave that decision to the more intelligent men of Religion,the pedophiles or the ones that cover up their acts.After the birth these caring people don't want anything to do with supporting these children.How many women wake up one morning after carrying for 8 months and decides "o'my God i'm pregnet'i think i'll go down to the neighborhood abortionist and get an abortion.There is no doctor that would abort a healthy fetus.The amount of abortions done in the 3rd trimester is very,very small, and only done to save the women or to remove a fetus that would not survive the birth.The Religios shamans as is their want,lied about this procedure and duped the naive into thinking that this was common.What would be todays situation if the estimated 40 to 50 million unwanted babies where not aborted since Roe-Wade?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

She did the right thing.
Posted by: WitchyNy on Aug 17, 2007 4:01 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is a word for a person who does not have the right to decide what to do with her own body.

It is called slavery.

Men have a hard time understanding this-because they do not have wombs.

This poor woman is cleary ill. She needs to be in a mental hospital-not jail. Even at that-in her mental state-she did the right thing..imagine what kind of mother she would have been if these children had been born.

A wild animal will miscarry or kill her newborn children if she is under enough stress. It is natures way of protecting females. Maybe what we need to ask-instead of casting stones-is why are so many women under such stress today?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

VENGENCE
Posted by: gellero on Aug 18, 2007 7:51 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This case is nothing more than a prosecutor trying to make a name for himself, like the infamous McMartin case, prosecutorial misconducy from day one. The 'confession' will never stand. The woman is a bit, shall we say, 'whacked' ??

Read the comments of Dr Kaye, forensic psychiatrist in the news article here:

While it appears Freeman did successfully conceal her pregnancy – her long-time boyfriend allegedly had no idea, nor did her friends and acquaintances in the community – she does not fit the typical profile for a neonaticidal mother. In a post-arrest interview with an OCPD detective, Freeman was asked if she provided pre-natal care, 911 or EMS, she said she did not. When asked if that was because the baby meant nothing to her, she replied yes.

Freeman’s apparent indifference should not necessarily be interpreted as malicious behavior, according to Kaye, who said, in many cases, neonaticidal mothers are no more attached to their infants than they are anything else that passes through their bodies.

“Indifference is akin to dissociation,” he said. “They simply don’t want to be pregnant. They have no attachment to the pregnancy, it’s just like some foreign object passing through their bodies. Just like you don’t have any warm and fuzzy feelings about yesterday’s chicken dinner that passed through you and is now on its way to the sewer system.”

Kaye said the prosecution in the Freeman case will likely emphasize her apparent indifference to the child she allegedly let die in the toilet moments after delivering it.

Kaye said the challenge in cases such as the Freeman case is coming to terms with the purpose of prosecution, which typically falls into several broad objectives. For example, one of the primary goals of prosecution is to protect the public, which is not applicable in the Freeman case, according to Kaye.

“The public at-large is not at risk from this person,” he said. “She is no menace to the public.”

Another basic reason for prosecution is to prevent a defendant from repeating his or her deviant behavior, but Kaye said that reason may not be applicable in the Freeman case.

“Is she likely to do it again? Well, yes and no,” he said. “It does appear that she has multiple incidents of neonaticide, but she also has four grown children.”

Yet another reason for prosecution is to send a message to others who find themselves in a similar situation, but Kay said harsh sentences and other punishments are not viewed as a deterrent, largely because a person in the situation would not typically have the clarity of mind to consider them.

“If the purpose is to send a message, that simply doesn’t work,” he said. “I’m sure there has never been a girl in this situation who stopped and said ‘I remember reading about this case or that case,’ and altered their behavior because of it.”

Kaye said the most likely reason for prosecution in the Freeman case will come down to vengeance. The images of fetuses in trunks, cadaver dogs and the FBI digging in the vacant lot are etched into the memory of most people familiar with the case and they will want, or even demand, some sort of harsh punishment.

“We’ve become a vengeful society and there is a call for justice in cases like these,” he said. “But the fact of the matter is, the vast number of these cases never see the light of day. They are handled with counseling, therapy, perhaps community service and probation. In my experience, most of these cases never go to trial and some sort of agreement is reached. Everybody gets worked up in the beginning, but there is typically some shift in the disposition of the case and it goes straight to a plea bargain.”

I'll bet the prosecutor is a Democrat.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fetal Protection Laws
Posted by: Arlene on Aug 20, 2007 6:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
all were enacted after Roe v. Wade with the intent of undermining the Court's decision. Before that, feti were non-entities.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Funerals for tampons... ?
Posted by: BlueBerry PickN on Aug 21, 2007 10:28 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm a SERIAL KILLER

*sob*




Spread Love...
... but wear the Glove!


BlueBerry Pick'n
can be found @
ThisCanadian

"Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Tough one
Posted by: Krain61 on Aug 22, 2007 4:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I will start by saying that I don't like abortion at all but however there are times that abortion might be a better outcome. Take George Bush for a prime example.
But someone said it's not a living human being till born and that is true. But if they wasn't raped I don't see abortion as a option since they knew that this could happen.It's not rocket science. But I think stopping a womans right to a abortion is just another way of attacking our contitution.
My sister did everything the doctor told her and eat good and all that crap but around 7 months the doctor told her that the baby was dead. Here's the scary part! They told her sshe still had to carry it to full term.. Why would a doctor say that?
And yes she did carry it it the next 2 months.
She did years b4 have a abortion!
I think this is a subject that will never end in any life time.
We as Men should have some say so if we{both man and woman} went into this Making Love or as most call it having sex or what ever it's called now. She's carring it but she was consenting to the out come and knew it could happen.
She is just as responsible as him to protect this from happening.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

couch not jail
Posted by: ajmartin on Aug 24, 2007 4:52 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obviously this woman is not playing with a full deck.
Mental care would be of more use to her and society than jail. And do we really want people this off balance raising children?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]