Michigan Prosecutor Announces Charges Authorized in Fetus Death

[Maddy McCall]

Macomb County Prosecutor Announces Charges Authorized in Fetus Death

MOUNT CLEMENS, Mich., Jan. 4 /PRNewswire/ -- Macomb County Prosecutor Eric Smith authorized criminal charges today against a sixteen-year-old Richmond male accused of terminating his girlfriend's pregnancy with a souvenir baseball bat.

The charge, Intentional conduct against a pregnant individual resulting in miscarriage or stillbirth, is a felony punishable by up to fifteen years imprisonment.

According to Michigan State Police detectives, the youths intentionally caused the death of the fetus by striking the mother's abdomen with the twenty-two inch bat over the course of two weeks. The parents of the youths were apparently unaware of the pregnancy and the decision to abort it.

snip/

Prosecutor Smith is relying on law created by the Michigan Legislature in 1999. According to that law, only the person making the intentional conduct against the pregnant individual is criminally liable. The pregnant individual herself, however complicit in the termination, is not.

The male, because of his age and lack of prior contacts with the criminal justice system, will be adjudicated in the juvenile court. If convicted, he would be subject to the jurisdiction of that court until he is twenty-one years old. The mother, also sixteen years old, will not be charged with a crime.



More at: http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050104/detu007_1.html

[RaleighNCDUer]

1. This is just too insane for comment. n/t

[AutumnMist]

32. As a Mother and A Woman

When you are pregnant, the change is immediate. You don't need to eat well and keep yourself well because a fetus or baby (however you look at the topic) doesn't exist. Or shouldn't exist until birth. There will be a massive change in your life...and your body. Pro-Choice or Pro-Life, a bat to the abdomen isn't and shouldn't be considered a choice. It was physical abuse, consented from both parties. In any other situation it would have been punishable by law to have a man take a bat to a woman. But in this case, apparently both of them decided to end the pregnancy this way. I don't like the thought of babies being thrown in trash cans, and I don't like the thought of a pregnancy being beaten into a miscarriage. Its sad, and I can only hope, after working many years in state health care, that the young parents will take advantage of the education that is available to them. There are many options, many programs, and many people who would support them either way. There is no legal law to have parental consent, It leads to many frightened young girls. I have seen it. I have worked in these clinics. I think that overall in many cases having mom and dad with them would be good. For the most part they need the rock of support from family. It's the fear of the unknown that fuels many young girls to decide on way or the other. Abortion is not easy. Nor is Adoption. No matter what they decide, these women/men should have the right to have their parents be a support system. Many don't have it, but there are just as many families that would and do support their sons/daughters. Just my two cents.

[DRoseDARs]

2. "The mother, also 16, will not be charged with a crime." WHAT?!?!

If they're charging the father with this, she's an accessory to it! SHE ALLOWED HIM TO STRIKE HER IN THE STOMACH WITH A BAT REPEATEDLY!!! How is that NOT making one's self an accessory to a crime?

Poorly-written laws :thumbsdown:

[NashVegas]

4. Think of it in the context of 'back alley abortions'

There's not much difference between this baseball bat and ye olde wire coathanger.

By turning the girl into a victim, the people pressing this case frame it in a way that we don't have to spend too much time considering the uncomfortable logic that she may have gone this route because the medical one was unavailable. They also make it easier for her to testify against the boyfriend. Divide and conquer.

[sandnsea]

21. The fetus is the victim

That is more troubling to me. The girl isn't the victim, the danger of this "abortion" to her isn't part of the charges at all. I don't know what the laws were before Roe, but I always had the impression people were more worried about the life and health of the woman than the fetus. Can you picture a day where illegal abortionists are given 15 years for killing fetuses while there's no prosecution at all for the dead women? This is all getting very weird.

[Liberal Veteran]

5. Which begs the question...

Does that mean a doctor performing an abortion could be charged with murder, but the patient gets to go free?

[DRoseDARs]

8. I should probably clarify my position...

I don't support abortion but DO support a woman's (and preferably decided with the father...it's his child too) right to choose. I'd rather abortions be choosen only in cases of rape, incest, or for the sake of the mother's health.

As far as laws go, if the woman participated willingly in an activity that another person has been charged with as a crime, then she is just as guilty as far as the law should be concerned. Letting the girl off scottfree in this case is outrageous.

[NashVegas]

9. It's a Political Tool

Bearing in mind, I am not acquainted with the finer details of this case.

If the female in this instance was charged, a successful defense for both (more likely in an appeal court) could have been made of her desire for the abortion. We still do have a constitutional right to one. By removing the need for the girl to defend herself, the law makes it easier to prosecute the person who actually performed the abortion.

[bunkerbuster1]

19. Ok, great. now say it with me: I oppose criminalization...

Please, no more of this "I oppose abortion" nonsense. I know of nobody who "supports abortion," obviously abortion is not a desireable outcome. What we are fighting are those who are criminalizing elective terminations of pregnancies.

And this latest assault case is a logical outcome of the movement to criminalize the procedure.

BTW--I "learned" during the final days of the Pres. campaign, thanks to a paid spot on my local hillbilly wingnut AM station, that John Kerry "voted for partial birth abortion six times."

That's how these ratfuckers are framing the argument. We have to frame it so it's crystal clear that the reThugs want to throw abortion providers in jail for murder.

[Bucknut213]

35. Totally agree...

[Igel]

22. You're confusing morality, justice, and law.

People eventually have to realize that there's no necessary connection between the three. I personally believe that morality is the basis for much law (although some is pragmatic--stop lights, voting age, etc.), and that law is seldom the basis for morality.

If the article is right, the law specifically excludes the woman from being culpable. Otherwise any woman getting an abortion would be culpable.

Why the guy's being charged when the woman didn't object is a mystery to me. Maybe this law predates the abortion laws. Get 20000 pages of fine-print laws going, legislators are bound to screw it up.

[Vektor]

3. This whole thing is nuts...

My God, what he hell is wrong with these people? I cannot even wager a guess.

[sarcasmo]

6. This all about making the fetus a life in the eyes of the court.

You will see many more of these news stories in the coming year or two. The Right is pushing these stories to the front page no matter how insane they may be. When they can charge you with a crime for killing a fetus then they will take away your abortion rights. IMHO it's time to kiss them goodbye.

[Merlin]

17. At some point the fetus IS a life.

That fact is undeniable.

[Pathwalker]

23. Yep, as soon as it is born. THEN, it is totally expendable.

n/t

[Maddy McCall]

41. THIS fetus wasn't viable.

And viability is that "some point" about which you speak, right?

[jukes]

7. i'm utterly amazed

still, @ least they aren't pretending that the fetus was a human, thus further threatening roe v. wade.

[imenja]

11. What was it then, a reptile?

Of course it was human. Roe v. Wade doesn't claim it isn't. How absurd.
A legal person is probably what you mean to say.

[annabanana]

13. (herein begins the "when does it become "human" distraction)...n/t

[imenja]

14. human vs. legal person

human is a species. The cells are human even when there are two or three of them because they aren't spawned from any other animal besides a human being. The question is when is a baby considered a legal person with it's own rights, apart from the mother's. Wouldn't Rowe v. Wade suggest that begins in the third trimester?

[Merlin]

18. Yes but 12 weeks is merely a centuries old tradition.

Blackmum based his Roe opinion--forbidding abortion on demand after the first trimester--on the ancient idea that "quickening" (e.g. perceptable movement in the womb) begins at about the end of the third month.

But the red states are being deluged with legitimate pictures of fetuses in the womb which--at almost exactly 8 weeks--begin to look profoundly like a tiny baby.

8 weeks is the point at which, medically and scientifically speaking, the "embryo" becomes a "fetus."

[imenja]

10. How far along was she?

The article doesn't say? Why didn't she get an abortion?

[AP]

12. I'm having a hard time seeing the problem here.

Pregnant women are extremely vunerable. Boyfriends who don't want them to have their babies murder them all the time. Insane people who want their babies kill them for their babies.

Here's a law that punishes people who hurt women when they're vulnerable because of pregnancy but doesn't criminalize the actions of the mother regardless of whether she cooperated with the assault.

So long as you can get a safe abortion from a medical professional in the state of MI, I don't see the problem in criminalizing something like this.

[imenja]

15. I agree but ....

there are all kinds of other questions that arise. Why did they choose this option? Why not go to a doctor for an abortion? Was the baby in the third trimester (therefore prohibiting an abortion)? If so, why on earth did they wait so long.
There is a lot going on that we don't have information about based on this very brief article.

[AP]

16. ...all those things will be sorted out at the trial.

[proudbluestater]

20. The Parental Notification Law apparently comes home to roost

Were it not for that law, possibly they could have both avoided this situation and she could have gotten a legal abortion.

[Liberty Belle]

31. Yes, if the right wingers didn't close down the abortion clinics

and scare away all the doctors. Of course, now the Bush budget withholds funds from any state that won't force hospitals and clinics to provide abortion services, making access even more limited.

Who needs coat hangers? The baseball bat is the new symbol for back-alley abortions, folks.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Maddy McCall]

46. Then I am scum, too.

Because I agree with everything she said. You didn't take a wrong-turn on the way to the Right-wing forum, did you? This is a progressive forum. Waiting on you to post one thing that makes me think that you are a progressive.

[THUNDER HANDS]

24. this is the biggest hit a Tigers' bat has had in 20 years

sorry, had to be said. (I'll go to hell now)

[Paleocon]

25. Ouch...

That's just wrong...

[Bucknut213]

36. Why did that make me laugh so hard?

I feel terrible, but I tend to be one who seldom finds humor inappropriate. And my mom is a fan of the tiggers.
Go Indians!

[bunkerbuster1]

37. Somewhere in Hell, Ty Cobb is laughing.

aw, 'sallright. I chuckled too.

[KingoftheJungle]

26. How can he be charged unless his GF brings charges against him?

This whole situation is seriously fucked up. They wanted an abortion, they couldn't get one via the legitimate routes, so they handled it themselves. Last I checked abortions weren't illegal, so how the hell is this even a case?

[theboss]

28. That's not how criminal law works

This is maybe the most misunderstood part of the law - when a person says that they aren't going to "press charges." What that means is that they are not going to cooperate with authorities. Often, this means the end of the case because without cooperation, nothing can be done. But if you assault someone with a baseball bat, the state can usually take care of that on its own.

If a person had to "bring charges," there would never be a murder conviction.

[KingoftheJungle]

43. thank you

Although the situation still sucks, in my opinion

[Bucknut213]

38. I couldn't perform brain surgery

on you just because you couldnt' find a doctor to do it. Even if I were successful, I'd still be guilty of a crime. I don't really agree that either (surgery or home abortions) should be crimes, but I'd pretty much allow anything between consenting adults, including consent to be eaten by the other. Infringements on our consent might be the largest source of liberty loss there is.

[bluestateguy]

27. You enact these laws and these things will happen.

I am always perplexed by the people who say they favor an exception to allow an abortion in the case of rape. How would that work? Would the rape have to be reported to the police? What if police never arrested a suspect? What if the person charged was later found not guilty after the abortion was performed? Would some women make up stories about being raped so they could get an abortion?

[Megahurtz]

29. I don't think either of them should be charged.

[RaleighNCDUer]

33. Agree. They need counseling, not prosecution.

[Liberty Belle]

30. This is why parental consent laws are terrible.

How terrible things must have been at home for this girl to allow someone to hit her with a baseball bat rather than talk to her parents? Perhaps they were abusive, or maybe it was daddy's baby.

Her only other option was to seek a court order for an abortion, but the courts in her state are stacked with right wingers, according to posts at the newspaper site.

Tragic, all the way around.

There is a poll at the newspaper site (see link above) where you can vote on whether the girl should be charged, and post comments. Please do, because the vote is overwhelmingly to crucify the girl.
Note: My post vanished, perhaps because I listed an out-of-state location, so you may wish to list a Michigan place of residency.

[Maddy McCall]

39. That's exactly the way I look at it.

They would have to have the girl's parents' consent to get an abortion. They must have been deathly afraid of the parents' reaction, so much so that they did the baseball bat abortion.

:grr:

[Southern Dem 2005]

34. The male or possibly both SHOULD be prosecuted

Not sure why everyone is having a hissy about this. At some point in the pregnancy you have to recognize that (1) a fetus is a "person" (2) and it should be illegal to abort the child. I'm not that conversant with the different state abortion laws but I know that most states outlaw late term abortions. While I understand the "right to choose" argument at some point that right has to be weighed against the health of the baby. Most states allow a woman several months to make a decision--eventually that decision is taken out of her hands. I'm fairly comfortable with the no abortions allowed line being viability.

All that said, this was NOT in any way a legal abortion. Beating the woman in the stomach with a bat isn't an acceptable act.

[Maddy McCall]

40. Read the article.

The fetus wouldn't have been viable. This wasn't murder. Read the article.

[Southern Dem 2005]

42. You are correct!

But I still say that type of behavior is unacceptable and should be prosecuted. While in many ways these laws are a backdoor attack on abortion they do have some redeeming features.

[Maddy McCall]

45. Redeeming features? Such as?

[Southern Dem 2005]

47. It should be clear

that the redeeming feature is to discourage someone from beating their girlfriend with a bat until she aborts. While the woman in this case was compliant that isn't always the case. What problem do you have with this law?