Video: Mother kills newborn, can’t be charged with crime

posted at 12:55 pm on December 18, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

This may be the worst story of the year, at least in reference to domestic policy and crime. How bad is it? When Matt of Creative Minority Report tipped me to it this morning, I had to track it down to make sure it was on the level. A woman in Campbell County, Virginia smothered her newborn infant, and police are powerless to do anything about it:

The caller said a woman in her early 20s was in labor. When deputies arrived, they discovered the baby had actually been born around 1:00a.m., about ten hours earlier. Investigators say the baby was already dead when deputies got there.

Investigators tell WSLS the baby’s airway was still blocked. They say the baby was under bedding and had been suffocated by her mother. Investigators say because the mother and baby were still connected by the umbilical cord and placenta, state law does not consider the baby to be a separate life. Therefore, the mother cannot be charged.

“In the state of Virginia as long as the umbilical cord is attached and the placenta is still in the mother, if the baby comes out alive the mother can do whatever she wants to with that baby to kill it.“, says Investigator Tracy Emerson. “She could shoot the baby, stab the baby. As long as it’s still attached to her in some form by umbilical cord or something it’s no crime in the state of Virginia.“

Law enforcement officials have repeatedly attempted to get the law changed, asking state legislators to do something about the gap in protection for newborns. Why have Virginia legislators failed to act? They’re afraid of running afoul of the abortion industry:

The Campbell County Sheriff’s Office and Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office worked unsuccessfully to get the law changed after another baby died in the county in a similar case. Emerson says they asked two delegates and one state senator to take the issue up in the General Assembly. He says the three lawmakers refused because they felt the issue was too close to the abortion issue.

Er, what? I’m not aware of fourth-trimester abortions being legal anywhere in the US. In fact, I doubt that third-trimester abortions are legal in Virginia, either. Ironically, if the baby had been killed by someone else in an assault on the mother before its birth, that person would have been charged with murder, which sets up a really interesting double standard. Are legislators in Virginia so afraid of the abortion industry that they can’t take steps to protect full-term babies after their birth? Sounds like Virginians need a new class of lawmakers.

Update
: Caleb Howe Tweets that one state legislator is now on the case:

State Senator Steve Newman announced today that the Division of Legislative Services has begun drafting legislation to ensure that a life cannot be legally taken after a child is born not withstanding its connection to the umbilical cord.

The bill will amend Section 18.2 of the Code of Virginia which is the criminal code. Newman stated, “It is difficult to believe that the current Code could have such a flaw that would allow anyone to take the life of a born child. While I will not comment at this time on the case in Campbell County, it is abundantly clear that Virginians will demand a legislative cure to this loophole. I have consulted with the Attorney General Elect, Ken Cuccinelli; Campbell County Commonwealth Attorney, Neil Vener; Campbell County Sheriff Terry Gaddy and the investigator in the case, Tracy Emerson. All have indicated their full support for this legislation.

We should keep an eye on this to make sure it gets signed into law.

Update II: A critic says that the report from WSLS is false, and that the law does cover this situation. But that critic doesn’t live in Virginia, and doesn’t explain how WSLS, the law enforcement agency, the state legislator, and the attorney general all got it wrong, too. After all, if the law covered the situation, the legislator wouldn’t have needed to introduce legislation to fix it and the AG, the county’s attorney, and the sheriff wouldn’t have endorsed it. At any rate, the facts to which I linked were reported by WSLS and confirmed by all of the above, all of whom are better sources than the critic in question.

Update III: Dave from Reno sends the following, emphases added by me:

1) The quote from the news story that talks about the problem being the exclusion of the mother:

“Emerson tells us there’s a double standard with the law. If someone other than the mother harms a baby still attached to the mother, that person can be charged.”

2) The statute in the Virginia code that Emerson is referring to:

18.2-32.2. Killing a fetus; penalty.
A. Any person who unlawfully, willfully, deliberately, maliciously and with premeditation kills the fetus of another is guilty of a Class 2 felony.
B. Any person who unlawfully, willfully, deliberately and maliciously kills the fetus of another is guilty of a felony punishable by confinement in a state correctional facility for not less than five nor more than 40 years.
(2004, cc. 1023, 1026.)

Note that it refers to “the fetus of another”, the use of the word “another” apparently allows the mother to kill her own fetus.

3) The article says that they tried to change the law, but the lawmakers wouldn’t take it up:

“The Campbell County Sheriff’s Office and Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office worked unsuccessfully to get the law changed after another baby died in the county in a similar case. Emerson says they asked two delegates and one state senator to take the issue up in the General Assembly. He says the three lawmakers refused because they felt the issue was too close to the abortion issue.”

4) I believe I have found the proposed law. It was HB 1631, and was introduced in the 2007 session, but never made it to the House for a vote.

You can find the history of the bill at the link below, as well as a PDF of the bill itself, which is designed to change 18.2-32.2 to remove the words, “of another”.

Note this sentence in the summary:

“Currently the act of unlawfully killing a fetus as described in this statute is a crime only if the fetus is the fetus “of another.”

5) Finally, here is the Virginia House of Delegates legislative schedule for 2007, where you can find HB 1631 listed as being referred to the Committee for Courts of Justice, where, per the status page, it died.

Thanks, Dave!


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

–There is no quirk in the law. It should be able to be prosecuted as a partial birth abortion/infanticide. The only quirk on it being prosecuted as a full homicide is the need to have evidence that the baby breathed on its own for about five minutes and that suffocation–not its own failure to breathe-caused its death. I don’t think that’s a quirk.

Jimbo3 on December 18, 2009 at 2:55 PM

Maybe the child drew a gun. Makes it self defense.

As for breathing on its own, it’s quite common to have to suction some amniotic fluid from lungs and mouth of a newborn in order to clear the passageways for breathing. It’s also necessary to position the newborn’s head properly due to swelling caused by childbirth. It sounds like the police are saying it’s ok under Virginia law to have done neither of these things.

As for the article, the claim that no prosecution can occur because the placenta was still in the mother and the umbilical still attached is pretty specific. From a quick scan of the Virginia Codes 18.2, it appears that the loophole does indeed exist if the legal definition of a person is as described. I can’t find the definition of a person in Virginia — maybe some Virginian here will help us out.

unclesmrgol on December 18, 2009 at 6:55 PM

Can anything get better with ObamaCare?

darwin on December 18, 2009 at 1:19 PM

Let’s all remember, (in 2010), this is EXCLUSIVE DEMOCRAT WRITTEN OBAMACARE LEGISLATION

Rovin on December 18, 2009 at 6:56 PM

Also- I love it how some people act shocked that law allows a woman to partially deliver her baby and kill it, yet they seem to have no problem with the practice of drilling a hole in a baby’s head and sucking out its brains until the head caves in and it dies in the womb?!

That is the definition of insanity when you gasp at one but yawn at the other!

TheBlueSite on December 18, 2009 at 5:55 PM

The allowance of partial birth abortion is part and parcel of our newest President’s views on “choice”. He showed the electorate how he felt in Illinois. I suspect that this act is legal in all states which allow partial birth abortion. If you can keep that child only partially born, or unable to breath, it isn’t murder. The loophole is deliberate.

unclesmrgol on December 18, 2009 at 7:04 PM

Seriously folks – forget Sodom & Gammorah – we’re becoming Aztecs!

abobo on December 18, 2009 at 7:05 PM

WHAT?

herrevery on December 18, 2009 at 7:17 PM

This world is a horror show.

herrevery on December 18, 2009 at 7:18 PM

Why not allow abortion up to 6 years after the child’s birth and this will please all of the pro abortion crowd. Think of it and all the choices the parents could make if the child becomes an inconvience in these six years. Yes we are on a slippery slope.

garydt on December 18, 2009 at 7:28 PM

I don’t understand how this wouldn’t be an illegal 3rd trimester abortion. VA allows 3rd trimester abortions only for “third trimester, continuation of pregnancy likely to result in death, physical or mental impairment of mother.”

Um, I don’t think any of those standards were met in this case. Charge her for an illegal 3rd trimester abortion.

Vera on December 18, 2009 at 7:37 PM

I took a look at LGF for the first time in a long time and was shocked by Charles’ venom, particularly on this Hot Air article. I’ve heard/read several accounts (including one from Megyn Kelly last night on O’Reilly), and they all have claimed in one way or another that investigators are powerless, and that they (the investigators), have given a state statute as the reason.

Charles quotes from an alleged Virginia statute that supposedly *would* make this a crime, but I have a hard time believing Virginia investigators (who should know their own laws), and a sharp lawyer like Megyn Kelly are in collusion to lie, and then that it’s Ed’s fault because he is disseminating untruths and didn’t ‘do his homework’.

Really surprising. I used to like LGF. I don’t care that I don’t agree with it all the time, I just don’t like the tone. It’s all spittle and spite it seems, and this is just the most obvious. Am I supposed to believe Charles or the police? The answer is obvious…

linlithgow on December 18, 2009 at 7:57 PM

linlithgow on December 18, 2009 at 7:57 PM

It is sad. Charles is like a child. Like he’s jealous of HotAir. Pathetic.

bridgetown on December 18, 2009 at 8:18 PM

How horrible. Absolutely a travesty. I had no idea that was part of VA law.

4shoes on December 18, 2009 at 8:21 PM

The bottomline is that LGF’s stats tanked after the election. Since his blog is his sole source of income, he was desperate to increase hits and thought he could do so by going all KosKids. Because he was always a lefty (this meme of his that he left the right is all b.s.) it was pretty easy. However, he didn’t attract much traffic. So, he has gotten more extreme and his attacks more desparate. Still, his traffic is about 1/10th of that of HotAir’s and it really chafes his butt.

Blake on December 18, 2009 at 8:27 PM

Since his blog is his sole source of income

Blake on December 18, 2009 at 8:27 PM

Really? I hear he makes quite a leaving removing the seats from bicycles for some of his more… flamboyant customers.

Darth Executor on December 18, 2009 at 9:12 PM

I believe the reverse should then be true. Since the woman was still attached to the umbilical cord, her life is meaningless; therefore, any action taken upon her would not be a crime.

How sick is that law and those who refuse to face it.

madmonkphotog on December 18, 2009 at 9:19 PM

Looking through 4 pages and 300 comments,am I really the only one that has a simple answer WHY they have such a law?

The most simple, clear reason for having such a gap in the law would be for a situation involving a baby that was not to the racial standards of the mother or her family. It might also have been there for situations involving deformations that were not detectable before modern medicine.

Obviously, in the world of today, they need to update the statutes a bit.

Freddy on December 18, 2009 at 10:00 PM

It’s very difficult to be found not guilty due to mental issues. Very few people are.

Blake on December 18, 2009 at 4:17 PM

I suppose you don’t know about Michael
“not guilty by reason of insanity” Hayes. Shot 13, killed 4. Parents had given him the boot, cut off his money. He claims to have smoked too much weed and saw demons (uh huh). He hasn’t done a day in jail. Since 1989, comes and goes from the psych hospital as he pleases, gov pays all his bills, and has fathered 2 children in the process.

If the Virginia loophole didn’t exist, you don’t think the mother would plea the latest/faddish psychiactric excuse for killing? She’ll never see a day in jail, nor anyone that does what she did, regardless of the law.

nottakingsides on December 18, 2009 at 10:12 PM

nottakingsides on December 18, 2009 at 10:12 PM

Who cares? Again, the insanity defense is infrequently used and when it is used, it is rarely successful. In Virgina they average about 35 NGRI acquittals a year. That includes felonies and misdemeanors. Only about 11% are homicides.

Blake on December 18, 2009 at 10:46 PM

Freddy on December 18, 2009 at 10:00 PM

No. I assume it is a throw back to common law. Doing a quick google I see that a number of states have the same standard, i.e., separate and independent existence – Illinois, Rhode Island, NH, Florida, Minn., Maryland, etc. etc.

Blake on December 18, 2009 at 10:55 PM

It’s murder, plain and simple. The umbilical cord is part of the baby, not the mother. The baby grows the umbilical and placenta it’s attached to. The placenta isn’t attached to the womb, it’s embedded and can and will separate from the womb leaving the womb intact.

If it’s been pointed out already, good. It can’t be repeated enough.

Woody

woodcdi on December 18, 2009 at 11:13 PM

Freddy on December 18, 2009 at 10:00 PM

Yes you are the only one that would conclude that a law exsisted due to “racial standards” and it needs to be “updated a bit”

go away.

batterup on December 18, 2009 at 11:33 PM

Let’s see if that new governor is worth anything.

You better get on this Mac.

Sapwolf on December 18, 2009 at 11:47 PM

Unf`@&!ng believable.

This woman doesn’t deserve to live she has. Neither do those “lawmakers”.

Danny on December 19, 2009 at 12:16 AM

Which law are you talking about? Thanks in advance.

RightOFLeft on December 18, 2009 at 3:58 PM

First let me state I think she should be prosecuted, for something…
The law cleary states that you can’t prosecute the mother if the umbilical cord is still attached, as I stated it is an archaic law, from when women were unfairly prosecuted when a child was still born.
We tend to forget that giving birth in a hospital or in clinical conditions is a fairly new procedure…for hundreds of years children were born at home, and a high incidence of death. Women were prosecuted for those deaths, as natural as they were then.
So they created this “loophole” that if the umbilical cord is attached, and the baby dies, it is not “viable”, it died of natural causes.
They never thought that society would turn downwards to such depths…we think in the year 2000 terms…many of these laws were written in the 1800′s, before people even knew to wash their hands or knew what bacteria was.
The shame is that it was never repealed or changed because killing babies now is big business…not that it was on the books, at the time it was needed.

right2bright on December 19, 2009 at 12:29 AM

1) The quote from the news story that talks about the problem being the exclusion of the mother:
“Emerson tells us there’s a double standard with the law. If someone other than the mother harms a baby still attached to the mother, that person can be charged.”
2) The statute in the Virginia code that Emerson is referring to:
18.2-32.2. Killing a fetus; penalty.
A. Any person who unlawfully, willfully, deliberately, maliciously and with premeditation kills the fetus of another is guilty of a Class 2 felony.
B. Any person who unlawfully, willfully, deliberately and maliciously kills the fetus of another is guilty of a felony punishable by confinement in a state correctional facility for not less than five nor more than 40 years.
(2004, cc. 1023, 1026.)
Note that it refers to “the fetus of another”, the use of the word “another” apparently allows the mother to kill her own fetus.

–Ed and Uncle, so why not use the partial birth infanticide provision?? You’re not limited to just this one provision.

Jimbo3 on December 19, 2009 at 12:38 AM

The legislature was afraid to touch the law for fear of creating problems with the abortion industry. Although the so-called “partial birth” abortions may be outlawed in the state, even they would not be prosecuted as the deliberate and premeditated act of homicide this and other cases appear to be. And the Commonwealth might be hesitant to provoke any court case over abortion law, since every single one seems to result in federal judges expanding the “right” to abortion.
`
The law probably isn’t on the books because women were prosecuted when they accidentally killed their newborns. Such accidents did happen in the days when most or all births took place in the home, usually without a physician and often without a midwife present. The specific wording “unlawfully, willfully, deliberately and maliciously” tends to rule out accidents and the like.
`
The language doesn’t sound very old or in the style of early American laws in Virginia. It may be an “old” law – but that depends upon the point of view. From the 1930s? ’50s?
`

Adjoran on December 19, 2009 at 12:59 AM

I hate to see a child die, to prove a point, but those laws that try have it both ways like Virginia aren’t fair. If it’s murder when someone causes injury to the child when it’s in the mother’s womb, then it’s murder when the mother has an abortion. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. I don’t support abortion, but double standards like this are against every ideal on which this country was based.

DFCtomm on December 19, 2009 at 1:16 AM

In order to have certain property rights, a cause of action for wrongful death, or murder, there has to be a live birth.

Under common law, and before they discovered human and fetal physiology, they defined live birth as having a separate and independent existence from the mother. A separate and independent existence was defined as expulsion or complete removal by Caesarean and a cut umbilical cord which is evidence that the infant had an independent circulation.

Many states still have these laws and it appears mothers killing their infants and getting away with it is not that uncommon.

Blake on December 19, 2009 at 1:27 AM

right2bright on December 19, 2009 at 12:29 AM

Back on the crackpipe, I see. Jeesh! It has nothing to do with women being unfairly prosecuted.

Blake on December 19, 2009 at 1:29 AM

You can’t have your cake and eat it too. I don’t support abortion, but double standards like this are against every ideal on which this country was based.

DFCtomm on December 19, 2009 at 1:16 AM

Aren’t you demanding to have your cake and eat it, too? You are arguing that it can’t be fetal murder in these situations unless abortion is also considered murder.

Blake on December 19, 2009 at 1:32 AM

Who cares?
Blake on December 18, 2009 at 10:46 PM

You obviously don’t since it destroyed your point.

nottakingsides on December 19, 2009 at 1:54 AM

You obviously don’t since it destroyed your point.

nottakingsides on December 19, 2009 at 1:54 AM

His point that the insanity defense is rarely used, and rarely successful was destroyed by you citing one example of when it was successfully used?

crr6 on December 19, 2009 at 1:59 AM

Megyn Kelly said last night (if I recall… it IS Friday), that this law was originally in response to still born ‘births’, where the woman was often blamed. As was pointed out, modern technology has resolved that issue.

As for LGF, I didn’t realise Charles’ readership was down post election, but there is definitely a markedly different tone than say, a year and a half ago. I didn’t realise LGF was his income source (I recall a few comments about web design), but perhaps that explains it. Regardless, his unbalanced attacks have alienated me, and I’m sure, many others.

linlithgow on December 19, 2009 at 2:15 AM

Really surprising. I used to like LGF. I don’t care that I don’t agree with it all the time, I just don’t like the tone. It’s all spittle and spite it seems, and this is just the most obvious. Am I supposed to believe Charles or the police? The answer is obvious

Charles did the same thing earlier this week with Michelle Malkin. He ranted and raved and held her personally responsible for spreading what he concluded were lies concerning the kid who drew the cross in school. One itsy problem, though. Malkin was simply posting what had been widely and repeatedly reported by the MSM. Hearing Charles tell it, you would think Malkin did the original reporting. It was extremely dishonest to hold Malkin responsible for any erroneous reports, if there were any, that is, when CNN and everyone else had been reporting the story all day.

Still, there he was raving like a loon. He’s literally a frothing spitting ball of hate who thinks nothing of dishonestly smearing people he views as the political enemy. It’s downright depressing how deranged he’s become.

kit9 on December 19, 2009 at 3:20 AM

I’m a virginian. Be skeptical of the point that the mother actively murdered her baby.

She delivered under the covers. I want to be sure that suffocation was not the result of this, and failure to clear the airway before I assign any degree of culpability to the mother.

SarahW on December 19, 2009 at 4:02 AM

democrat dream…another dead baby…yoohoo!!!

winston on December 19, 2009 at 7:42 AM

Under the circumstances, it would be next to impossible to prove that the woman committed intentional, premeditated murder. Which makes me wonder if this loophole isn’t just a convenient excuse for the attorney general not to pursue a case he knows he can’t win.

A woman in Campbell County, Virginia allegedly smothered her newborn infant, and police are powerless to do anything about it

This is standard in journalism, no?

RightOFLeft on December 19, 2009 at 8:20 AM

Who cares?
Blake on December 18, 2009 at 10:46 PM

You obviously don’t since it destroyed your point.

nottakingsides on December 19, 2009 at 1:54 AM

Oh, clueless one: One case does not destroy the fact that the insanity defense is infrequently used and when it is used, it is rarely successful.

Blake on December 19, 2009 at 9:13 AM

Infanticide is the next logical step for a nation that embraces abortion (ask doctors in the Netherlands). Defining human life based on location (inside vs. outside womb), or its source of oxygen (umbilical cord vs. lungs), etc. is nonsense–the distinctions are artificial. Obama was comfortable w/ infanticide in Chicago, and the nation elected him. Not a good sign.

jazz_piano on December 19, 2009 at 9:15 AM

This could open up a whole new area. I would think that you could perform retroactive abortions on libs and it would not be murder. Thus making this country a much better place to live.

Wills on December 19, 2009 at 9:33 AM

I’m a virginian. Be skeptical of the point that the mother actively murdered her baby.

She delivered under the covers. I want to be sure that suffocation was not the result of this, and failure to clear the airway before I assign any degree of culpability to the mother.

SarahW on December 19, 2009 at 4:02 AM

Well, the investigator gives a conclusionary statement that she suffocated the infant and the airway was still blocked but does not explain what he is basing it on. I’m surprised that the autopsy had not been performed before they gave a statement. Someone else mentioned it may be based on statements she might have made at the time, i.e., the baby cried, I put a pillow over face, etc.

People shouldn’t pick on Virginia. I googled “separate and independent existence” and found out this was the common definition of live birth and is still used by many states. As a result, there have been a number of murder trials in different states where the mother walked. The language used by the investigator that she could shoot the baby, stab the baby so long as the umbilical cord is attached was from a judge in one of the court of appeal opinions on a similar case in another state.

Blake on December 19, 2009 at 9:44 AM

And today the pro-abortion folks have a little spring in their step.

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 19, 2009 at 9:49 AM

This is what happens when we do not control those we elect. They go and become Corrupted by the other loose cannons in D.C.

If they are representing U.S. then what they say is what we condone and concur with. If it is not, then they are misrepresenting U.S..

I have always said we pay our elected leaders to stand up for our rights as enumerated in the Constitution. Therefore, when we elect them and send them to represent U.S., then they job is simple. Wait for U.S. to tell them what and how we want them to change an antiquated law, rule, regulation, or policy. We do not elect them to put together laws, rules, regulations, or policies on their own. As far as I am concerned, they could sit there and draw a salary until we tell them to do something.

At that point they confirm with their constituents that our desires are shared by others of the nation, region, or township, thus a majority. When determined to be a problem or issue then we have the responsibility to inform them of how we desire the change to take shape. Of course, we must remember, the changes we ask them to perform in our name, must comply with the Constitution or By-Laws enacted to limit the amount of control the body has over U.S..

MSGTAS on December 19, 2009 at 9:51 AM

Which makes me wonder if this loophole isn’t just a convenient excuse for the attorney general not to pursue a case he knows he can’t win.

RightOFLeft on December 19, 2009 at 8:20 AM

It’s not a loophole. Again, many states have identical or similar laws.

Blake on December 19, 2009 at 9:51 AM

That is so wrong. That lady should be convicted of a capital crime.

ironmonk on December 19, 2009 at 10:39 AM

Dave from Reno sends the following, emphases added by me:

A newborn baby is a ‘fetus’ ??

bridgetown on December 19, 2009 at 11:21 AM

It’s not a loophole. Again, many states have identical or similar laws.

Blake on December 19, 2009 at 9:51 AM

Sure, why not. Makes as much sense as anything else about this story.

RightOFLeft on December 19, 2009 at 11:35 AM

Blake on December 19, 2009 at 9:13 AM

I gave ONE example of a psychological defense, and stated I was discussing psychological defenses in general. Psychological defenses are used frequently today with much success. If you don’t know this, then you are clueless on the issue.

You and your partner in idiocy, crr6, have chosen to focus solely on the “insanity” pleas. Strawman.

nottakingsides on December 19, 2009 at 11:45 AM

Aren’t you demanding to have your cake and eat it, too? You are arguing that it can’t be fetal murder in these situations unless abortion is also considered murder.

Blake on December 19, 2009 at 1:32 AM

Applying a single standard to fetal murder is having my cake and eating it too? Either it’s murder or it’s not.

DFCtomm on December 19, 2009 at 12:15 PM

I gave ONE example of a psychological defense, and stated I was discussing psychological defenses in general. Psychological defenses are used frequently today with much success. If you don’t know this, then you are clueless on the issue.

You and your partner in idiocy, crr6, have chosen to focus solely on the “insanity” pleas. Strawman.

nottakingsides on December 19, 2009 at 11:45 AM

You gave an example of the insanity defense. Hayes pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. The reason we’re focusing on “insanity pleas” is because the defendant in the example you used plead insanity.
As far as I know, pleading insanity is the only “psychological” complete defense in criminal law. Soooo I have no idea what you’re talking about, and I don’t think you know what you’re talking about either. What do you mean “psychological defenses in general” are used frequently? What are they, other than insanity? How frequently are they used?

crr6 on December 19, 2009 at 1:00 PM

Still, there he was raving like a loon. He’s literally a frothing spitting ball of hate who thinks nothing of dishonestly smearing people he views as the political enemy. It’s downright depressing how deranged he’s become.

kit9 on December 19, 2009 at 3:20 AM

Haha, he sure does seem to have a little blog envy going on. He opens the registration door quite frequently anymore and he sure doesn’t get many takers. And you can’t go ANYWHERE on his site where it doesn’t ask for a donation or he’s peddling something on Cafepress or asking you to hit the donate button. Now he’s got a hit piece on this post. I didn’t go there that often for a while because it seemed like his posts were all about his web design skills. Then I checked it out one day and he had posted all kinds of images of tea partiers with stupid signs and I got thrown out for commenting that it was stupid to post pics of a few idiots and label them as representatives of everyone on the right. Now, I go there to see who he’s blasting on Hotair because he sure has a bee in his bonnet about this site. Wow. Deranged is right. Sad that a man his age is relying on Amazon sales and a donate button for his living. He really needs to share the commissions with the people who post on linkviewer, though, since they do the majority of the work…he just rants about the right.

scalleywag on December 19, 2009 at 1:59 PM

Come judgment day, I wouldn’t want to be standing anywhere near these animals people!
No offense intended to animals.

christene on December 19, 2009 at 2:18 PM

Blake –

Just saw this http://tiny.cc/yCxAa. I think it suggests there was no a confession of an active attempt to harm the baby. Rather, the EMT’s quoted want her to be charged because of the time elapsed before calling for help.

SarahW on December 19, 2009 at 4:33 PM

Blake – I’m reading between the lines there. I await autopsy findings before judging.

SarahW on December 19, 2009 at 4:35 PM

What I want to know is why HotAir still links to LGF when CJ trashes HotAir.

Ed, you’re going the extra mile to be the better man.

Disturb the Universe on December 19, 2009 at 5:32 PM

I’ve been trying to download this video to spread the word, and am unable to do so. Can’t be found on Youtube. Any links would be appreciated, as the embedded clip can’t be captured (by me, anyway).

Ugly on December 19, 2009 at 8:54 PM

The muddied water of Roe v Wade creates another victim. This travesty is only possible because the not-so-supreme court could not recognized the unborn as legal persons.

docdave on December 19, 2009 at 9:10 PM

Never mind… got the software I needed.

Ugly on December 19, 2009 at 10:01 PM

So many are not even questioning the “facts” as laid out by the investigator.

Based on nothing but the wording he chose, they are convinced this woman actively smothered her infant, and they imagine she covered the baby’s face or put a pillow over it’s face or something worse.

An interview with responding EMT’S puts a slightly different spin on the Campbell Co. case. The EMT”s wanted the case treated as a crime; but one reading between the lines it appears they got authorities involved because she gave birth under the covers and did not summon help; not because the woman actively smothered her infant. Rather the case was an accidental smothering because no one was present to realize the baby was delivered, get it out of the bed and clear its airways. But they think it was “accidentally on purpose” because the mother waited till morning to get any attention for herself or her baby.

In a nutshell, Baby deaths have happened before when women don’t call them -and they think its on purpose and ought to be some kind of crime to deliver alone. They arrived when it was too late to do anything for the baby; they don’t want women let “off the hook” for laboring and delivering under the covers in the middle of the night while the rest of the household sleeps.

A key point is there is the implication by the EMT, a tacit admission, that the suffocation was accidental or at least claimed to be, an therefore there is notrhing to support the idea that the mother cofessed to anything more serious than delivering alone in the middle of the night, perhaps not even sure of what was actually happening to her or knowlegable or capable enought to know what to do.

SarahW on December 20, 2009 at 10:08 AM

I can’t take this anymore. Liberals are the worst kind of cancer on our society. Time to cut the cancer out.

ErinF on December 20, 2009 at 10:56 AM

Docdave, be skeptical. There is some indication that the child was not deliberately harmed. The EMT’s are upset because the mother isn’t charged for delivering alone in the middle of the night without help – and that the “suffocation” consisted of her delivering under the covers, and the infants airway remained closed by its own secretions. Wait until the autopsy says otherwise to conclude otherwise; because there appears to be a claim (based on statements by an attending EMT) that the mother never said she smothered her baby. That it is accidental death, not deliberate murder.

SarahW on December 20, 2009 at 11:42 AM

Remember, only women have the right to kill

Bevan on December 20, 2009 at 11:57 AM

Back on the crackpipe, I see. Jeesh! It has nothing to do with women being unfairly prosecuted.

Blake on December 19, 2009 at 1:29 AM

I understand you have a difficult time understanding simple posts.
I will dumb it down for you….
Some posters were wondering why the law existed to allow something as heinous as this…it was a “loophole” from many decades ago where women were unfairly prosecuted when the baby was still born, which was much more common in home births…as you should know, hospital births of baby in a clinical care environment is a fairly recent occurrence in society.
Read through my posts and you will learn something…or just continue to whine and make stupid insults that add nothing.

right2bright on December 20, 2009 at 2:00 PM

Remember, only women have the right to kill

Bevan on December 20, 2009 at 11:57 AM

A proper bumper sticker for liberals…

right2bright on December 20, 2009 at 2:01 PM

i noticed that charles is baiting for traffic again.

sadly, he’s openly complaining that ed didn’t give him a link.

eh on December 21, 2009 at 2:17 AM

–Ed and Uncle, so why not use the partial birth infanticide provision?? You’re not limited to just this one provision.

Jimbo3 on December 19, 2009 at 12:38 AM

Because the partial birth infanticide provision only coners incomplete births. If the baby was completely expelled, it’s covered by the provision Ed posted in his last update.

Darth Executor on December 21, 2009 at 11:28 AM

*covers

Darth Executor on December 21, 2009 at 11:47 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4