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!

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

Did the clump of cells cry out loud before good ‘ole mom suffocated her/him? And how do you KILL “something” that allegedly, to the left, is not alive??

Pro-choice is PRO MURDER. Look up some abortion pics and let me know your thoughts. B/C if you can view aborted baby bodies and still be pro “choice” you are a monster.

May the end times go ahead and come…..this evil depravity is too much to bear….

Ris4victory on December 18, 2009 at 1:42 PM

You may say that you think it’s sick but what did you expect, truly? The anti-abortion side has been predicting this forever and NOW you say it makes you sick and that something should be done?

Honestly, what did you expect? What do think the difference is between that dead child and another one a few months younger is?

princetrumpet on December 18, 2009 at 1:34 PM

A similar situation in Los Angeles last year, a woman gives live birth to a baby she stuffs down a dumpster and walks away. The baby is found dead. Happened to be the second child she didn’t want, the first occasion years previous, she insisted was stillborn in a bathroom. Her murder charge is thrown out by a judge who says intent is not present. LA DA appealed, lost, filed involuntary manslaughter charge, drew the same judge. Judge throws out the charge because a filing deadline was missed. DA files involuntary manslaughter charge again, draws the same judge. Judge throws out all charges because of a procedural rule that nobody can be charged criminally three separate times for the same act in Los Angeles County.

Infanticide has a strong silent lobby. They don’t hold talk shows. They don’t have parades. But they believe some people are better dead, and they’re willing to abuse official power to make it happen.

Chris_Balsz on December 18, 2009 at 1:42 PM

Has mankind always been this savage, or just getting to this point of depravity? I can’t hear the word “motherhood” without thinking of disturbing stories like this.

Hening on December 18, 2009 at 1:43 PM

From conception.

Speakup on December 18, 2009 at 1:40 PM

Millions of women are on the pill. The Pill does not prevent conception, the pill prevents implantation of the embryo into the lining of the uterus. Are they all murderers?

Holger on December 18, 2009 at 1:45 PM

Megan Kelly covered this last night on O’Reilly. Can’t find a link anywhere.

huckleberryfriend on December 18, 2009 at 1:46 PM

Remember the post from a week or so ago:

Planned Parenthood: “That’s not a baby growing inside of you”

That’s not a baby growing inside outside of you.

Track-A-'Crat on December 18, 2009 at 1:46 PM

Millions of women are on the pill. The Pill does not prevent conception, the pill prevents implantation of the embryo into the lining of the uterus. Are they all murderers?

Holger on December 18, 2009 at 1:45 PM

whoa, unless everything I was taught was wrong, most birth control pills prevent ovulation or the release of the egg and so therefore do prevent conception. I think you are thinking of the morning after pill, which does as you describe.

Firefly_76 on December 18, 2009 at 1:47 PM

I did not know that this was physically possible. I would have assumed that, as long as the umbilical cord was in place and the placenta still attached to the mother, the baby wouldn’t need to breath to survive.

Count to 10 on December 18, 2009 at 1:48 PM

At first, I just got angry. Were I living in Campbell County, I’d be headed up to Lynchburg and getting Liberty University students to organize a vigil outside the home where this murder took place. As it was I felt powerless to do much of anything other than complain….

But then I realized that the very least I could do is contact MY delegate and state senator and tell them to take up the issue that their Campbell County colleagues refuse to broach. I would encourage any other residents of Virginia to do the same thing.

highhopes on December 18, 2009 at 1:49 PM

Unlike women who abort their babies – this woman might at least have the excuse of postpartum psychosis.

katiejane on December 18, 2009 at 1:49 PM

Millions of women are on the pill. The Pill does not prevent conception, the pill prevents implantation of the embryo into the lining of the uterus. Are they all murderers?
Holger on December 18, 2009 at 1:45 PM

Not in any jurisdiction in this country, state or federal.

Chris_Balsz on December 18, 2009 at 1:50 PM

This is the sacrificing your baby on the altar of Ba’al Old Testament stuff. It’s sickening and sad.

While I’m not blaming Obama for this, it is slightly indicative and damning statement of our culture that our elected President voted three times not to protect babies born alive during botched abortions.

This is the age in which we live now.

May God have mercy on our souls.

Theophile on December 18, 2009 at 1:51 PM

It’s an old case but it appears the state has to prove that the infant had an independent and separate existence from the mother. Even breathing on its own is not considered enough. Virginia needs to enact some up to date statutes.

Link

Blake on December 18, 2009 at 1:51 PM

Illegal or not, there is a special place in hell for the mom.

GopherCon on December 18, 2009 at 1:52 PM

10-15 years ago a teenage girl in Hampton, VA gave birth in a bus station restroom. She then drowned the new-born in a toilet. She was charged with murder and convicted.

This is the ultimate “choice” that’s acceptable to “pro-choice” supporters. And don’t forget, Professor Peter Singer of Princeton has advocated the murder of children up to 18 months of age.

“PRINCETON, September 12, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In a question and answer article published in the UK’s Independent today, controversial Princeton University Professor Peter Singer repeats his notorious stand on the killing of disabled newborns. Asked, “Would you kill a disabled baby?”, Singer responded, “Yes, if that was in the best interests of the baby and of the family as a whole.”"

” The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition leader concluded, “even though Singer does not like to be compared to the Nazi’s especially since his parents died in the Holocaust, his philosophical position is identical to what the Nazi’s proposed. ”

When you demand the “right” of someone to murder a child, what separates you…

Screw this. To paraphrase a pastor, if GOD doesn’t judge America soon, HE’ll need to resurrect Sodom and Gomorrah and apologize.

I think I need a break from web sites.

MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL!

And may GOD have mercy on the United States of America.

oldleprechaun on December 18, 2009 at 1:53 PM

This is crushing my heart. I have been trying to have a baby for well over 2 years (I’m 38, didn’t get married until 36, dr’s don’t give me a lot of hope w/out IVF which I don’t have the $10k for)and would have taken that baby in a heartbeat.

teffertoes on December 18, 2009 at 1:54 PM

If this law is not properly amended within days, every elected official in Virginia be thrown out of office.

t.ferg on December 18, 2009 at 1:54 PM

Millions of women are on the pill. The Pill does not prevent conception, the pill prevents implantation of the embryo into the lining of the uterus. Are they all murderers?

Holger on December 18, 2009 at 1:45 PM

whoa, unless everything I was taught was wrong, most birth control pills prevent ovulation or the release of the egg and so therefore do prevent conception. I think you are thinking of the morning after pill, which does as you describe.

Firefly_76 on December 18, 2009 at 1:47 PM

Birth control pills taken daily prevent a woman’s body from ovulating. I just wanted to state this again. My husband was misinformed as well about oral contraceptives.

Babino on December 18, 2009 at 1:55 PM

Firefly_76 on December 18, 2009 at 1:47 PM

The morning after pill does just that. But with oral contraceptives there is a non-zero chance of ovulation occuring.

Holger on December 18, 2009 at 1:56 PM

The same people that have no problem with abortion advocated against DDT usage. In addition they are responsible for all the stupid regulations that go great lengths to protect any animal species egg or juvenile. But with humans, the logical disconnect is made, and the developing human can be disposed of for vanity. It is indefensible and one day they will have to give an account for their decision.

daesleeper on December 18, 2009 at 1:57 PM

Millions of women are on the pill. The Pill does not prevent conception, the pill prevents implantation of the embryo into the lining of the uterus. Are they all murderers?

Holger on December 18, 2009 at 1:45 PM

whoa, unless everything I was taught was wrong, most birth control pills prevent ovulation or the release of the egg and so therefore do prevent conception. I think you are thinking of the morning after pill, which does as you describe.

Firefly_76 on December 18, 2009 at 1:47 PM

I am researching this statement by Holger and I think he/she may be correct; every site I go to says BC pills do NOT prevent conception…….

Ris4victory on December 18, 2009 at 1:57 PM

There is some dispute over this and whether the sherriff/DA are correctly interpreting the law. While because of the umbilical cord issue she probably cannot be charged with murder, she can (if the autopsy finds cause of death to not be from natural causes) be charged with “partial birth infanticide” according to VA Code section 18.2-71.1. I would say that the DA has not looked hard enough for something to charge her with. This is not to say that legislators should not take a look at the law anyway. I will personally be mentioning it to several members of the House of Delegates and maybe even the new Governor and Attorney General given the opportunity.

Here is the link if you want to read the code for yourself. http://leg1.state.va.us/000/cod/18.2-71.1.HTM

Govgirl on December 18, 2009 at 1:41 PM

-There’s something that’s odd about this. I think this would be a partial birth infanticide under this statute. Maybe there’s an issue about what they can prove happened.

–She wouldn’t be guilty of killing a fetus, though, as that only applies to someone else’s fetus. See below.

� 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.

Jimbo3 on December 18, 2009 at 1:57 PM

birth control pills prevent ovulation
Firefly_76 on December 18, 2009 at 1:47 PM

Correct.
And so the wuestion is, has mass usage of the pill led to the rise of the beta male/metrosexual man?

Badger40 on December 18, 2009 at 1:58 PM

Chris_Balsz on December 18, 2009 at 1:42 PM

The judges hands were tied. The law is pretty clear. If he didn’t do it, the court of appeal would have.

Blake on December 18, 2009 at 2:00 PM

Chilling and sad, at the very least. A very clear demonstration of what happens when we drift away from God and his message that all human life is sacred. If we understand that at no time is a fetus not a member of the human family, with the full protection of law that we all have (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) then doing what is right becomes so much clearer.

I think it is easy to condemn the mother for what she has done, but I would rather keep her in my prayers as it must be a terrible burden to know what she has done to herself and her child.

It is the law that is an ass in this case, where right and wrong fall through the cracks. If this is a question of the legality of abortion, then it is an awful demonstration of the immorality of the act.

turfmann on December 18, 2009 at 2:00 PM

I love how people are all condemning VA (and her legislators, several of whom are some of the greatest people I have ever met) – have you taken a look at your OWN state laws to make sure the same is not true? Virginia has fairly strict abortion laws – as strict as can be with Roe still out there. We have just elected a decidedly PRO-LIFE slate of candidates who will take office in a month and increased the pro-life majority in the House of Delegate. In VA we have notification laws and all the rest. The problem in this case is that they have to prove that the child was alive and BREATHING before they can charge the mother with murder. If the umbilical cord causes a problem legally, she can be charged with partial birth infanticide as there is no exclusion of the mother given in that part of the VA Code (see previous post for the link). If they cannot prove that the child was breathing and suffocated (ie ligature marks, fibers in the lungs, etc, etc) the most they could charge her with is neglect for not calling for help when the baby did not begin breathing after birth.

Govgirl on December 18, 2009 at 2:03 PM

Ris4victory on December 18, 2009 at 1:57 PM

Not sure how accurate this is, but taken from “Christian Answers” website: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-bcpill.html

When taken as prescribed (every day) the birth control pill prevents conception by: 1. usually preventing ovulation, and 2. thickening cervical mucous to delay/interfere with sperm entry through the cervix.

If the pill fails to prevent ovulation and conception, it prevents the fertilized egg from growing through “changes in the endometrium which reduce the likelihood of implantation” (a form of abortion).

When taken as a “morning after pill” the mechanism of action is to prevent implantation of a conceptus (zygote, the fertilized egg).

So, what millions of us women have been taught, and that seems largely correct, is that the pill taken daily prevents contraception. There appears to be a small risk of failure, however, that may result in a fertilized egg being aborted.

Are we really saying now that women can’t take the pill?

Firefly_76 on December 18, 2009 at 2:03 PM

Oral contraceptives are designed to prevent ovulation. But there is a nonzero chance of ovulation occuring regardless. And in some cases the pill will prevent implantation of the embryo but will not prevent conception which happens before implantation.

So, if a woman is on the pill, has sex, concieves but the embryo does not implant into the wall of the uterus is it Murder? Negligent Homicide?

Holger on December 18, 2009 at 2:03 PM

G

ovgirl on December 18, 2009 at 1:41 PM

Jimbo3 on December 18, 2009 at 1:57 PM

Forget it. Those statutes have nothing to do with it. Under Virginia law, the prosecution has to prove that the child was born alive and had an independent and separate existence apart from the mother. I linked to a case above.

Blake on December 18, 2009 at 2:04 PM

@ Badger40 on December 18, 2009 at 1:58 PM

:-) has this been to your benefit or detriment Badger?

Firefly_76 on December 18, 2009 at 2:05 PM

As a sufferer of occasional functional ovarian cysts (ovulation from HELL), the Pill prevents ovulation, kthx.

I think birth should constitute a separate existence for the child, VA law should be amended! As for this girl, someone oughta publish a name and phone number.

Sekhmet on December 18, 2009 at 2:06 PM

EWW! How is that an abortion?!?

sammypants on December 18, 2009 at 12:57 PM

It’s not an abortion, it’s murder. Premedatated murder.

mechkiller_k on December 18, 2009 at 2:07 PM

Firefly_76 on December 18, 2009 at 2:03 PM

It all depends. To someone who states life begins at conception then the Pill is potentially murder. But if it begins at implantation it is not.

And with regard to conception, even after conception the embryo can be flushed out next mentstrual cycle even if implanted into the uterine wall.

But growth begins before implantation. Cell division happens before implantation.

Holger on December 18, 2009 at 2:07 PM

Having given birth 3 times, I wonder how she kept the placenta within her for 10 hours. It usually follows a few minutes after the baby whether you want it to or not.

Common Sense on December 18, 2009 at 2:08 PM

G

ovgirl on December 18, 2009 at 1:41 PM

Jimbo3 on December 18, 2009 at 1:57 PM
Forget it. Those statutes have nothing to do with it. Under Virginia law, the prosecution has to prove that the child was born alive and had an independent and separate existence apart from the mother. I linked to a case above.

Blake on December 18, 2009 at 2:04 PM

–Blake, the case you linked was a murder/manslaughter case for the killing of a live human being. It was heard before the partial birth infanticide statute was passed. Whether or not the fetus was a live human being (not attached to the mother) is irrelevant for purposes of the partial birth statute.

–There has to be more to this story.

Jimbo3 on December 18, 2009 at 2:08 PM

Plus certain medications will hinder the Pill from preventing ovulation but still allow the Pill to prevent implantation of the embryo.

Holger on December 18, 2009 at 2:09 PM

Forget it. Those statutes have nothing to do with it. Under Virginia law, the prosecution has to prove that the child was born alive and had an independent and separate existence apart from the mother. I linked to a case above.

Blake on December 18, 2009 at 2:04 PM

You are correct if they are going to charge her with murder – but not with partial birth infanticide – the very name of which indicates that the child is not an independent life. I would suggest you look at the link I posted a link on this earlier which you obviously failed to read so I will post the first two points here. From the VA Code

§ 18.2-71.1. Partial birth infanticide; penalty.

A. Any person who knowingly performs partial birth infanticide and thereby kills a human infant is guilty of a Class 4 felony.

B. For the purposes of this section, “partial birth infanticide” means any deliberate act that (i) is intended to kill a human infant who has been born alive, but who has not been completely extracted or expelled from its mother, and that (ii) does kill such infant, regardless of whether death occurs before or after extraction or expulsion from its mother has been completed.

By this statute they would only have to prove that she killed or intended to kill the baby, regardless of whether it was attached or not.

Govgirl on December 18, 2009 at 2:09 PM

The problem in this case is that they have to prove that the child was alive and BREATHING before they can charge the mother with murder. If the umbilical cord causes a problem legally, she can be charged with partial birth infanticide as there is no exclusion of the mother given in that part of the VA Code (see previous post for the link). If they cannot prove that the child was breathing and suffocated (ie ligature marks, fibers in the lungs, etc, etc) the most they could charge her with is neglect for not calling for help when the baby did not begin breathing after birth.

Govgirl on December 18, 2009 at 2:03 PM

Nope. Read the case I linked to. It’s not just proving a live birth but that the infant had an independent and separate life from the mother.

Blake on December 18, 2009 at 2:09 PM

And with regard to conception, even after conception the embryo can be flushed out next mentstrual cycle even if implanted into the uterine wall.

Holger on December 18, 2009 at 2:07 PM

Er, is this a veiled argument that women who get pregnant should be strapped to a bed for 9 months so as not to risk the inadvertant flushing of an embryo? I really hope we’re not going down this road.

Firefly_76 on December 18, 2009 at 2:09 PM

Blake on December 18, 2009 at 2:09 PM

Do you not understand the meaning of the words “partial birth”?

Govgirl on December 18, 2009 at 2:12 PM

If they cannot prove that the child was breathing and suffocated (ie ligature marks, fibers in the lungs, etc, etc) the most they could charge her with is neglect for not calling for help when the baby did not begin breathing after birth.

Govgirl on December 18, 2009 at 2:03 PM

Then the law needs to be changed. It really is that simple. Contact your delegate and tell them to close the loophole so that prosecutors have something with teeth when it is clear the mother is negligent if not guilty of homocide.

highhopes on December 18, 2009 at 2:14 PM

So, if a woman is on the pill, has sex, concieves but the embryo does not implant into the wall of the uterus is it Murder? Negligent Homicide?

Holger on December 18, 2009 at 2:03 PM

You think your reductio ad absurdum is powerful, more powerful than a spell. You think your reasoning is valid, sound, solid, tight, binding. But no one is bound by your words, word-magician. They seek the good, not your so-called chain of thought.

Kralizec on December 18, 2009 at 2:15 PM

This has nothing to do with abortion, so I don’t see why the legislators would use that excuse. Also, Roe v. Wade states:

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

Chekote on December 18, 2009 at 2:15 PM

The precise question presented here has not been decided by us. However, the traditional and prevailing view expressed by courts from other jurisdictions is that in a prosecution for

killing a newly born baby, it is incumbent upon the State to prove that the child was born alive and had an independent and separate existence apart from its mother, and that the accused was the criminal agent causing the infant’s death.

White v. State, 238 Ga. 224, 232 S.E.2d 57 (1977). See Jackson v. Commonwealth, 265 Ky. 295, 96 S.W.2d 1014 (1936); People v. Hayner, 300 N.Y. 171, 90 N.E.2d 23 (1949); State v. Collington, 259 S.C. 446, 192 S.E.2d 856, 65 A.L.R.3d 407 (1972). See also Annot.: “Proof of Live Birth in Prosecution for Killing Newborn Child” 65 A.L.R.3d 413, 415 § 2, 416 § 3, and 417 § 4 (1975), and other cases there cited. Contra, Singleton v. State, 33 Ala.App. 536, 35 So.2d 375 (1948); People v. Chavez, 77 Cal.App.2d 621, 176 P.2d 92 (1947).

In the present case, all the medical opinion evidence showed that the child had air 784 in its lungs and stomach and had passed a large quantity of meconium and that it was born alive. However, the medical testimony presented by the Commonwealth showed that the child breathed only a few times. The medical testimony presented by defendant showed that the child was alive only for a short time, not more than a few minutes at most, as evidenced by the fact that there was no decomposition attributable to microorganisms entering the infant’s system during respiration. There was no evidence that the child ever achieved an independent and separate existence apart from its mother. The medical evidence showing that the child breathed a few times after birth is not an unqualified opinion that the child had acquired an independent existence separate from its mother. Shedd v. State, 178 Ga. 653, 654, 173 S.E. 847, 848 (1934).

Here the evidence shows that death resulted from anoxia (lack of oxygen), but the expert medical witnesses were unable to state the cause of death. It cannot be inferred from the evidence that the death was caused by wrapping the child in a towel or placing it in the plastic bag. To hold that the child’s death was caused by the criminal act or acts of the defendant would be contrary to the medical evidence and amount to pure speculation and surmise.

–This was a 1976 case involving manslaughter. There was insufficient proof that, in effect, the mother caused the baby’s death. The separate and distinct test isn’t applicable to the partial birth statute. Only the conditions of that statute would need to be met.

–I still think the problem, though, is a proof problem. Maybe the statements by the mother can’t be admitted.

Jimbo3 on December 18, 2009 at 2:15 PM

My big problem here is that the “mother” showed seriously depraved indifference by not seeking medical care (at the very least). How else can the umbilical cord be attached for ten hours ex utero? I mean, if they were still connected when medical personnel arrived, it was for ten hours. If they were not attached, I’d say, “gee, we only have your say-so the umbilical cord was still attached when you smothered your baby, and you have a motive to lie your butt off. Kiss the murder charges!”

What I don’t want are laws that can fail to make the important distinction between the ovum washed out with a menstrual cycle and an ovum deliberately removed. Or rather, between this “woman” smothering her baby deliberately and someone misjudging what was going on during a home birth, and the baby accidentally smothering.

Sekhmet on December 18, 2009 at 2:17 PM

I guess that this is the ultimate in live birth abortions.

Johan Klaus on December 18, 2009 at 2:18 PM

I cried when my wife found out she was pregnant… I cried when we first heard the heartbeats… I cried when we saw the sonograms… I cried when each was born… I didn’t cry when I cut the cord… they were all children long before that.

mankai on December 18, 2009 at 2:18 PM

Then the law needs to be changed. It really is that simple. Contact your delegate and tell them to close the loophole so that prosecutors have something with teeth when it is clear the mother is negligent if not guilty of homocide.

highhopes on December 18, 2009 at 2:14 PM

That sounds simple enough, but does that then include the parents of babies that die of SIDS? How about babies that suffocate during the birthing process? While this is horrible (and I believe that there is some cause for officials to believe foul play is involved or they would not be talking about this) writing legislation to fix it is not as simple as everyone seems to think it is. And as I said earlier – I intend to speak to several Delegates with whom I am personally acquainted and if I get the opportunity the new Gov and AG both of whom are very pro-life and law and order people.

Govgirl on December 18, 2009 at 2:20 PM

Re: Govgirl on December 18, 2009 at 2:03 PM

Actually, they can determine if the baby was breathing on it’s own. If the child died in utero, it would have amniotic fluid in it’s lungs. Once outside of the mother, a living child will expel the fluid and breath in air. During autopsy, medical examiners can examine the child’s lungs to determine if air was taken in.

Not that any of this really matters. A human is a human, no matter what stage of development, method of oxygen intake, or geographical location.

Jewels on December 18, 2009 at 2:20 PM

Unlike women who abort their babies – this woman might at least have the excuse of postpartum psychosis.

katiejane on December 18, 2009 at 1:49 PM

This might be the case. If she was laying amongst all the gore, that’s not normal. She may have been trying to kill herself as well.
Will wait for more facts.

rollthedice on December 18, 2009 at 2:21 PM

This is just incredibly evil.

INC on December 18, 2009 at 2:22 PM

Firefly_76 on December 18, 2009 at 2:09 PM

No. I am stating that someone who argues Life begins at Conception should also advocate for the outlawing of The Pill because its potential for negligent homicide.

Holger on December 18, 2009 at 2:23 PM

That sounds simple enough, but does that then include the parents of babies that die of SIDS? How about babies that suffocate during the birthing process? … Govgirl on December 18, 2009 at 2:20 PM

Hi Govgirl,

Can you tell me how many infant deaths occur because of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome during the birthing process or suffocation during the birthing process?

Jewels on December 18, 2009 at 2:24 PM

Actually, they can determine if the baby was breathing on it’s own. If the child died in utero, it would have amniotic fluid in it’s lungs. Once outside of the mother, a living child will expel the fluid and breath in air. During autopsy, medical examiners can examine the child’s lungs to determine if air was taken in.

Not that any of this really matters. A human is a human, no matter what stage of development, method of oxygen intake, or geographical location.

Jewels on December 18, 2009 at 2:20 PM

I wasn’t arguing that they couldn’t I was trying to distinguish between the authorities being able to charge her with murder vs partial birth infanticide which does not require being able to prove that the infant was breathing and viable outside of the womb.

Govgirl on December 18, 2009 at 2:24 PM

I think Govgirl is correct here, although Blake has a good point. The Virginia Partial Birth Abortion Act (VPBA) was recently upheld by the 4th Circuit (June 2009), after being struck down be previous opinions. That may be why some people think what this woman did was not illegal under some sort of “loophole”. However, as Govgirl pointed out, the VPBA absolutely prohibits termination where there is a “live birth” which is defined as follows:

C. For the purposes of this section, “human infant who has been born alive” means a product of human conception that has been completely or substantially expelled or extracted from its mother, regardless of the duration of pregnancy, which after such expulsion or extraction breathes or shows any other evidence of life such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, whether or not the umbilical cord has been cut or the placenta is attached.

Clearly, the type of loophole being touted as the reason for not charging this woman is incorrect.

Regarding Blake’s correct assertion that the State must prove that the baby “had an independent and separate existence apart from its mother”, I’m not sure that this factor of proof is still valid given the VPBA. I would think that the statute overturns any prior proof requirements that are in conflict with it, and that prosecutors simply have to prove what the statute says they have to prove. In this case, that there was a “live birth” and not that the baby had a separate and independent existence.

I could be wring about that, but I would think that the State has the duty to at lest try and make that case. Moreover, difficulties in establishing proof shouldn’t prevent the woman from being charged. I think someone in Campbell County is dropping the ball here.

MichaelW on December 18, 2009 at 2:26 PM

Jewels on December 18, 2009 at 2:24 PM

I can’t speak for govgirl, but I would remind folks that something or someone you cannot deliberately go out and kill you are also somewhat obligated to protect from death through negligence.

Sekhmet on December 18, 2009 at 2:28 PM

That sounds simple enough, but does that then include the parents of babies that die of SIDS?

It has to do with intention. If the mother “intetionally” suffocated the baby, it seem pretty slam dunk to me. Again, once the fetus reaches viability, I see no reason why the law cannot protect the born child. Certainly, Roe v. Wade does not prevent them from doing so. Maybe there is more to this story.

Chekote on December 18, 2009 at 2:28 PM

Holger on December 18, 2009 at 2:23 PM

And that view unfortunately justifies the slippery slope argument pro-choicers use. They argue all the time that once abortion is made illegal, the next step will be to outlaw contraception.

Firefly_76 on December 18, 2009 at 2:28 PM

Govgirl on December 18, 2009 at 2:09 PM

Nope. Where’s your proof that the infant was born alive as defined by the statute? There has to be evidence that the infant: breathes or shows any other evidence of life such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles.

Where’s your evidence?

Blake on December 18, 2009 at 2:29 PM

Maybe they should look into charging her with practicing medicine without a license.

Blacklake on December 18, 2009 at 2:29 PM

writing legislation to fix it is not as simple as everyone seems to think it is.

Govgirl on December 18, 2009 at 2:20 PM

Who said it was simple to write good legislation? I certainly didn’t. But that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be written. Not so much for this case, but to prevent future deaths at the hands of the “mother.”

highhopes on December 18, 2009 at 2:29 PM

MichaelW on December 18, 2009 at 2:26 PM

Thank you. I think that they would not have to prove the separate existence of the infant if they charge under the VPBA, they probably would to charge her with murder or manslaughter.

Govgirl on December 18, 2009 at 2:30 PM

That is horrific.

Change the law, ditch the governor, ditch the senators, ditch the congressmen.

Dave Rywall on December 18, 2009 at 2:32 PM

Holger on December 18, 2009 at 1:31 PM

I always find it funny when pro-choice people don’t even know what the abortion law is in this country. You can have an abortion for any reason up until birth as long as you claim a “health” reason. I’m not going to do your research for you, but I believe is Doe vs. Bolton.

TimTebowSavesAmerica on December 18, 2009 at 2:32 PM

@Blake

Where’s your evidence?

As someone pointed out above, physical evidence can be obtained that the newborn took it’s first breath. In any event, problems of proof should prevent charges from being filed.

MichaelW on December 18, 2009 at 2:32 PM

Under the partial birth infanticide statute, the infant does not meet the definition of a live birth, or at least there is no evidence that it was a live birth.

Under the murder/manslaughter statutes, there is no evidence that the infant has a separate and independent existence as required by the law.

Blake on December 18, 2009 at 2:33 PM

@Blake:

Under the partial birth infanticide statute, the infant does not meet the definition of a live birth, or at least there is no evidence that it was a live birth.

How do you know?

MichaelW on December 18, 2009 at 2:34 PM

The judges hands were tied. The law is pretty clear. If he didn’t do it, the court of appeal would have.

Blake on December 18, 2009 at 2:00 PM

No, the trial judge makes the call as to whether elements of the charge have been established enough for a jury trial.
And I doubt a state appeals court would overturn a class A felony conviction because a court in Los Angeles broke a “local local” rule.

Chris_Balsz on December 18, 2009 at 2:34 PM

Where’s your proof that the infant was born alive as defined by the statute?

Autopsy will be able to determine that.

Chekote on December 18, 2009 at 2:35 PM

highhopes on December 18, 2009 at 2:29 PM

My point is that if adhered to Virginia’s partial birth abortion policy already allows for this woman to be charged, even if she cannot be charged with murder. That is not to say that they shouldn’t look at the law to see if it can be tightened up – which I have now said 3 times.

Govgirl on December 18, 2009 at 2:35 PM

Do you not understand the meaning of the words “partial birth”?

Govgirl on December 18, 2009 at 2:12 PM

Do you not know how to read? If you do, read the damn statute you keep citing and tell me how you can prove that it was a live birth as defined by that statute.

Blake on December 18, 2009 at 2:35 PM

Millions of women are on the pill. The Pill does not prevent conception, the pill prevents implantation of the embryo into the lining of the uterus. Are they all murderers?

whoa, unless everything I was taught was wrong, most birth control pills prevent ovulation or the release of the egg and so therefore do prevent conception. I think you are thinking of the morning after pill, which does as you describe.

It is not just the morning after pill that is abortive, many modern birth control pills are because the first generations of pills only tried to prevent conception and this failed often enough so the abortive component was added. This is most dishonestly written on the package as “anti-nidrative” or a variant therof, and how many people knows that anti-nidrative is in fact abortive?

so yes, many women are comitting murder without knowing it, which diminishes the guilt but does not exculpate since you are morally obliged to know what you are doing vis-a-vis the pills you are putting in your mouth.

JC Silverberg on December 18, 2009 at 2:36 PM

Firefly_76 on December 18, 2009 at 2:28 PM

I don’t think banning abortion would lead to problems with contraception as much as problems with women who may take a different view of pregnancy and birth than their doctors or the medical establishment. For that matter, doctors who want to try anything innovative with care of pregnancy and birth.

It could load a lot of pregnancies with too much liability for the care to be remotely affordable. Complications handled at home under medical advisement might end up requiring hospitalization. Home birth may become too risky. Gods help you if you slowly wean yourself from cigarettes and coffee instead of going cold turkey.

The less affordable pregnancy becomes, the less often it will happen.

Sekhmet on December 18, 2009 at 2:36 PM

Autopsy will be able to determine that.

Chekote on December 18, 2009 at 2:35 PM

What ever makes you think they have not performed an autopsy? Or, do you think autopsies are optional when they find an infant with its airway blocked?

Blake on December 18, 2009 at 2:37 PM

NOW and NARL approve of this!

BoSox_or_Bust on December 18, 2009 at 2:37 PM

Change the law and make it retroactive.

bridgetown on December 18, 2009 at 2:38 PM

That is horrific.

Change the law, ditch the governor, ditch the senators, ditch the congressmen.

Dave Rywall on December 18, 2009 at 2:32 PM

Your logic is mind blowing – not. We just elected a new governor and the senators and congressman have nothing to do with writing VA law.

Govgirl on December 18, 2009 at 2:38 PM

Govgirl on December 18, 2009 at 2:35 PM

Nope. Doesn’t meet the definition of a live birth as required under § 18.2-71.1.

Blake on December 18, 2009 at 2:39 PM

And also, unless medical personnel could attest to finding the placenta still in the uterus and baby still attached to umbilical cord ten hours later when they showed up—what evidence do they have that they were all in one place and together when the woman smothered the baby?

Sekhmet on December 18, 2009 at 2:39 PM

Change the law and make it retroactive.

bridgetown on December 18, 2009 at 2:38 PM

You’re kidding, right?

Blake on December 18, 2009 at 2:40 PM

What ever makes you think they have not performed an autopsy? Or, do you think autopsies are optional when they find an infant with its airway blocked?

Blake on December 18, 2009 at 2:37 PM

The linked story says this happened today, Friday, and an autopsy is BEING performed.

Chris_Balsz on December 18, 2009 at 2:40 PM

Update
By way of LGF, from the Code of Virginia

§ 18.2-71.1. Partial birth infanticide; penalty.

A. Any person who knowingly performs partial birth infanticide and thereby kills a human infant is guilty of a Class 4 felony.

B. For the purposes of this section, “partial birth infanticide” means any deliberate act that (i) is intended to kill a human infant who has been born alive, but who has not been completely extracted or expelled from its mother, and that (ii) does kill such infant, regardless of whether death occurs before or after extraction or expulsion from its mother has been completed.

The term “partial birth infanticide” shall not under any circumstances be construed to include any of the following procedures: (i) the suction curettage abortion procedure, (ii) the suction aspiration abortion procedure, (iii) the dilation and evacuation abortion procedure involving dismemberment of the fetus prior to removal from the body of the mother, or (iv) completing delivery of a living human infant and severing the umbilical cord of any infant who has been completely delivered.

C. For the purposes of this section, “human infant who has been born alive” means a product of human conception that has been completely or substantially expelled or extracted from its mother, regardless of the duration of pregnancy, which after such expulsion or extraction breathes or shows any other evidence of life such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, whether or not the umbilical cord has been cut or the placenta is attached.

D. For purposes of this section, “substantially expelled or extracted from its mother” means, in the case of a headfirst presentation, the infant’s entire head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the infant’s trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother.

E. This section shall not prohibit the use by a physician of any procedure that, in reasonable medical judgment, is necessary to prevent the death of the mother, so long as the physician takes every medically reasonable step, consistent with such procedure, to preserve the life and health of the infant. A procedure shall not be deemed necessary to prevent the death of the mother if completing the delivery of the living infant would prevent the death of the mother.

F. The mother may not be prosecuted for any criminal offense based on the performance of any act or procedure by a physician in violation of this section.

If the facts are as reported, then the action was a crime under existing Virginia law. It seems likely, then, that the facts are not as reported.

hicsuget on December 18, 2009 at 2:41 PM

Change the law and make it retroactive.

bridgetown on December 18, 2009 at 2:38 PM

Can’t under VA Constitution:

Section 9. Prohibition of excessive bail and fines, cruel and unusual punishment, suspension of habeas corpus, bills of attainder, and ex post facto laws.

That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted; that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless when, in cases of invasion or rebellion, the public safety may require; and that the General Assembly shall not pass any bill of attainder, or any ex post facto law.

Firefly_76 on December 18, 2009 at 2:41 PM

Autopsy will be able to determine that.

Chekote on December 18, 2009 at 2:35 PM

What ever makes you think they have not performed an autopsy? Or, do you think autopsies are optional when they find an infant with its airway blocked?

Blake on December 18, 2009 at 2:37 PM

The story (and the comments by the sheriff) were all from the other day, before an autopsy was performed according to the local paper which said the autopsy was being performed (ie no results yet). I don’t believe that there has been a new story on this since then. What I want to know is why the officials are not looking at the VPBA status instead of toward manslaughter.

Govgirl on December 18, 2009 at 2:42 PM

LGF has a post slamming this post now

jp on December 18, 2009 at 2:42 PM

As someone pointed out above, physical evidence can be obtained that the newborn took it’s first breath. In any event, problems of proof should prevent charges from being filed.

MichaelW on December 18, 2009 at 2:32 PM

How do you know?

MichaelW on December 18, 2009 at 2:34 PM

If they had the evidence, they would have filed. These people aren’t stupid. They would consult with the district attorney and a pathologist to see what they could charge. I love how people think that the people who do this for a living are all idiots but they who never investigated a murder case or tried a murder case know it all.

Blake on December 18, 2009 at 2:44 PM

What a terrible story. A precious innocent child murdered.

What a world we live in.

Richard Romano on December 18, 2009 at 2:44 PM

Firefly_76 on December 18, 2009 at 2:28 PM

The Pro-Choicers could not argue slippery slope if the Pro-Life position was overwhelmingly implantation. The issue of Abortion is so great something as inconsequential as Conception versus Implantation is meaningless drivel.

On another note, isn’t it fun in a sort of sad way to see our Slippery Slope prophecy come to frutition? We’ve long argued that soon Liberals will be okay with post-partum abortions and look it, we were right.

Holger on December 18, 2009 at 2:45 PM

That is horrific.

Change the law, ditch the governor, ditch the senators, ditch the congressmen.

Dave Rywall on December 18, 2009 at 2:32 PM

Your logic is mind blowing – not. We just elected a new governor and the senators and congressman have nothing to do with writing VA law.

Govgirl on December 18, 2009 at 2:38 PM
——
Ha ha ha ha ha

Dave Rywall on December 18, 2009 at 2:45 PM

LGF has a post slamming this post now

jp on December 18, 2009 at 2:42 PM

FCJ
FLGF

Sekhmet on December 18, 2009 at 2:47 PM

18.2-71.1. Partial birth infanticide; penalty.

A. Any person who knowingly performs partial birth infanticide and thereby kills a human infant is guilty of a Class 4 felony.

B. For the purposes of this section, “partial birth infanticide” means any deliberate act that (i) is intended to kill a human infant who has been born alive, but who has not been completely extracted or expelled from its mother, and that (ii) does kill such infant, regardless of whether death occurs before or after extraction or expulsion from its mother has been completed.

The term “partial birth infanticide” shall not under any circumstances be construed to include any of the following procedures: (i) the suction curettage abortion procedure, (ii) the suction aspiration abortion procedure, (iii) the dilation and evacuation abortion procedure involving dismemberment of the fetus prior to removal from the body of the mother, or (iv) completing delivery of a living human infant and severing the umbilical cord of any infant who has been completely delivered.

C. For the purposes of this section, “human infant who has been born alive” means a product of human conception that has been completely or substantially expelled or extracted from its mother, regardless of the duration of pregnancy, which after such expulsion or extraction breathes or shows any other evidence of life such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, whether or not the umbilical cord has been cut or the placenta is attached.
———

Well this changes things, doesn’t it.

.

Dave Rywall on December 18, 2009 at 2:47 PM

That woman should be death.

Falz on December 18, 2009 at 2:47 PM

Millions of women are on the pill. The Pill does not prevent conception, the pill prevents implantation of the embryo into the lining of the uterus. Are they all murderers?

Holger on December 18, 2009 at 1:45 PM

Well, these certainly are de facto abortions. I would not call them murderers if they do not have full knowledge and full consent of the will in their use of the pill. I make no apologies for what is true.

Goldenavatar on December 18, 2009 at 2:48 PM

LGF has a post slamming this post now

jp on December 18, 2009 at 2:42 PM

Dumbass is missing the point. it appears she may have smothered the child. This quirk in the law about a separate existence needs to be corrected.

Blake on December 18, 2009 at 2:49 PM

If the facts are as reported, then the action was a crime under existing Virginia law. It seems likely, then, that the facts are not as reported.

hicsuget on December 18, 2009 at 2:41 PM

From the article: They say the baby was under bedding and had been suffocated by her mother.

–I wonder if the real issue is that the mother told something to the cops that would not be admissible because they screwed something up. To say in effect that they know it was suffocated and then make up some BS reason why the crime can’t be prosecuted looks real stange to me….

Jimbo3 on December 18, 2009 at 2:51 PM

I can’t believe they made a statement without the autopsy results if indeed the reports were true. If the child never took a breath at all, they would not be able to file murder. I guess since the cord was still attached they believe that it nixed a murder charge and they were right. Still, they should have waited. The report was on 12/15. Is it too soon for results? Maybe.

Blake on December 18, 2009 at 2:52 PM

What I am betting is that when the medical personnel arrived, placenta was detached. But it was 10 hours later, and it will take competent medical personnel to prove whether the placenta was detached or ceasing to function when the smothering happened 10 hours before.

But even if everything were still attached, it’s not good for public order to say an infanticide is not an infanticide if you do it really, really quickly after birth. That’s like saying a bank robbery is not a bank robbery if you were wearing a pink wig. It only gives a green light to those with ill intent.

Sekhmet on December 18, 2009 at 2:52 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4