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

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

As I suspected it, there is more to the story. I really don’t know why such much of Hot Air’s time is spent on just fanning the flames with respect to the abortion issue. Why not spend the time finding constructive, practical ways to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies in this country?

Chekote on December 18, 2009 at 2:53 PM

Jimbo3 on December 18, 2009 at 2:51 PM

The story mentioned that they found the infant’s airway blocked, so I think that is where the suffocating comes in. One doesn’t place a pillow on an infant’s face.

Blake on December 18, 2009 at 2:54 PM

May God open his arms wide to receive this heavenly child.

And, may HIS wrath of anger and disgust be laid upon those who condoned and allowed this travesty to happen.

This is the epitome of a total breakdown in a civil society.

If this is America’s direction, I am truly ashamed.

Rovin on December 18, 2009 at 1:22 PM

I concur entirely, but this ….revolting monstronsity was neatly summarized in one word a bit earlier on.

Satanic

TimTebowSavesAmerica on December 18, 2009 at 1:07 PM

The Lord will keep the kid safe and happy as the mother refused to, but damn and quadruple ******* damn it all, may the Lord judge harshly those who perpetrate such acts, and those who defend the acts.

KinleyArdal on December 18, 2009 at 2:54 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

–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

How about not allowed to live? This was stone-cold murder, not killing in self defense; we used to execute murderers in this country.

Bishop on December 18, 2009 at 1:27 PM

I concur with this statement one hundred percent.

KinleyArdal on December 18, 2009 at 2:56 PM

Why not spend the time finding constructive, practical ways to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies in this country?

Chekote on December 18, 2009 at 2:53 PM

They are! They have live-blogging posts which prevent people from having uninterrupted intercourse.

Chris_Balsz on December 18, 2009 at 2:56 PM

The story mentioned that they found the infant’s airway blocked, so I think that is where the suffocating comes in. One doesn’t place a pillow on an infant’s face.

Blake on December 18, 2009 at 2:54 PM

–Blocked doesn’t necessarily mean suffocated. (I haven’t read any of the linked stuff if they provide more detail).

Jimbo3 on December 18, 2009 at 2:56 PM

As I suspected it, there is more to the story. I really don’t know why such much of Hot Air’s time is spent on just fanning the flames with respect to the abortion issue. Why not spend the time finding constructive, practical ways to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies in this country?

Chekote on December 18, 2009 at 2:53 PM

Go back to LGF. My issue is straight out and out murder. Was this kid murdered? Are the Virginia murder statutes archaic? Kids get the short in of the stick when it comes to murder and abuse regularly under the law. It’s disgusting.

Blake on December 18, 2009 at 2:56 PM

As I suspected it, there is more to the story. I really don’t know why such much of Hot Air’s time is spent on just fanning the flames with respect to the abortion issue. Why not spend the time finding constructive, practical ways to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies in this country?

Chekote on December 18, 2009 at 2:53 PM
—–
Stop making sense.

To address the issues why women have unplanned pregnancies takes wayyyyyyyyyyy more effort than printing out a shock photo of a fetus and marching around the town square with it.

Dave Rywall on December 18, 2009 at 2:57 PM

I thought this country had reached bottom when an 8-year-old was sent for psych evaluation for drawing Christ on the cross and now this. I’m more sad than angry. It is sad to see that we, as a country, have morally hit bottom and yet we continue to sink. If ever there was a time for spiritual revival, THIS IS IT! There is only one HOPE for the country and the world and it’s not Obama. As we celebrate the birth of Christ next week, I can only pray the He will lift us out of the mire before it is too late.

LonelyMassRepublican on December 18, 2009 at 2:57 PM

Go back to LGF. My issue is straight out and out murder. Was this kid murdered? Are the Virginia murder statutes archaic? Kids get the short in of the stick when it comes to murder and abuse regularly under the law. It’s disgusting.

Blake on December 18, 2009 at 2:56 PM
—–
Read the law.

Hotair has conveniently cherry picked.

Dave Rywall on December 18, 2009 at 2:58 PM

Now, you can weep for mankind Allah.

hawkdriver on December 18, 2009 at 2:59 PM

–Blocked doesn’t necessarily mean suffocated. (I haven’t read any of the linked stuff if they provide more detail).
Jimbo3 on December 18, 2009 at 2:56 PM

…You’ve used that one in court, haven’t you?

To address the issues why women have unplanned pregnancies takes wayyyyyyyyyyy more effort than printing out a shock photo of a fetus and marching around the town square with it.
Dave Rywall on December 18, 2009 at 2:57 PM

Sex is fun.
Prudence and caution reduce the frequency of sex.
I think that about covers the “issues”…

Chris_Balsz on December 18, 2009 at 2:59 PM

–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

Spare me the stupid lectures and you better read the damn law. Requiring a separate existence from the mother is a bizarre requirement for murder charges especially when it isn’t satisfied by the infant breathing for several minutes.

Blake on December 18, 2009 at 3:01 PM

Blake

Spare me the self-rightious posturing. The statute clearly allows prosecution of the case. The point is that just about every week Hot Air serves red meat to its audience on this issue. I am tired of it and we rather spend time finding practical solutions to this highly emotional issue. Besides, I can’t go back to LGF because I was banned.

Chekote on December 18, 2009 at 3:02 PM

Read the law.

Hotair has conveniently cherry picked.

Dave Rywall on December 18, 2009 at 2:58 PM

Ed quoted a VA news source quoting VA residents and cops discussing VA law.

If those VA sources are confused, this is NOT an example of right-wing hysteria.

Chris_Balsz on December 18, 2009 at 3:02 PM

Ed quoted a VA news source quoting VA residents and cops discussing VA law.

If those VA sources are confused, this is NOT an example of right-wing hysteria.

Chris_Balsz on December 18, 2009 at 3:02 PM
——

Well, as it turns out, It IS an example of hysteria and people getting all worked up without all the facts.

The law?

Here’s the law:

http://leg1.state.va.us/000/cod/18.2-71.1.HTM

Dave Rywall on December 18, 2009 at 3:05 PM

The point is that just about every week Hot Air serves red meat to its audience on this issue. I am tired of it and we rather spend time finding practical solutions to this highly emotional issue.
Chekote on December 18, 2009 at 3:02 PM

For many of us, the issue is the unconstitutional and anti-democratic requirement that abortion be legal and immediately accessible in this country. NOT “unplanned pregnancy”.

Chris_Balsz on December 18, 2009 at 3:06 PM

Perhaps Ed Morrissey can enlighten us and tell us what is the point of thread after thread on the abortion issue? I respectfully don’t see that his threads advance the ball at all. If people here are serious about wanting to reduce the number of abortions in the country, then we have to find practical – I do mean practical – way of reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies.

Chekote on December 18, 2009 at 3:06 PM

Wow… I’ve joked before about “post partum abortions”, but this is just… wow.

malclave on December 18, 2009 at 3:06 PM

Chris

So you would be okay with the number of abortions staying the same provided Roe v. Wade is overturned?

Chekote on December 18, 2009 at 3:07 PM

Spare me the stupid lectures and you better read the damn law. Requiring a separate existence from the mother is a bizarre requirement for murder charges especially when it isn’t satisfied by the infant breathing for several minutes.

Blake on December 18, 2009 at 3:01 PM

–Read the case you linked, Blake. Here’s the money quote. Yes, the judge said you need a separate existence but the real holding was that the cause of death wasn’t established. Since it was a newborn, the state needed to show the cause of death.

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.

Jimbo3 on December 18, 2009 at 3:08 PM

@Blake:

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.

As I stated in my first comment, it appears that some people may have been misinformed. The VPBA is pretty clear on it’s face, and if and when evidence is obtained, they may be able to prosecute (maybe not convict, but certainly prosecute). A lack of proof does not constitute a “loophole” which is what these paragons of legal discourse (according to you) are saying. I’ll state it plainly: they are 100% wrong.

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.

Uh, no. They were completely wrong. Read the statute again.

This quirk in the law about a separate existence needs to be corrected.

It seems that the VPBA does that.

MichaelW on December 18, 2009 at 3:08 PM

Read the law.

Hotair has conveniently cherry picked.

Dave Rywall on December 18, 2009 at 2:58 PM

We have been actually – you must not have read through the comments. The substance of the debate here has been on whether this woman can be charged under VA statutes other than murder/manslaughter. It is not hysteria about “abortion.” This is not to say that those statutes should not be tightened, but we have been discussing why she is not being charged under the VBPA statutes. I also want to say that I think abortion IS murder – just for the record. However, it is not the primary discussion here.

Govgirl on December 18, 2009 at 3:09 PM

Well, as it turns out, It IS an example of hysteria and people getting all worked up without all the facts.
The law?
Here’s the law:
http://leg1.state.va.us/000/cod/18.2-71.1.HTM
Dave Rywall on December 18, 2009 at 3:05 PM

Take it up with Campbell County investigators, their PR dept, and WSLS news. YOU are being irrational claiming that Ed Morrissey went off the rails even talking about this. You might as well complain at all the people mourning JFK at 2pm Nov 22nd 1963, before they had “all the facts”.

Chris_Balsz on December 18, 2009 at 3:09 PM

Clearly the law allows for prosecution. Another false alarm from Hot Air. Good day everyone.

Chekote on December 18, 2009 at 3:10 PM

Why not spend the time finding constructive, practical ways to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies in this country?

Chekote on December 18, 2009 at 2:53 PM

Sex is fun.
Prudence and caution reduce the frequency of sex.

Chris_Balsz on December 18, 2009 at 2:59 PM

And since the last couple generations have thrown those two ideas out the window along with the faith of their fathers, here we are. Scare tactics don’t work any longer, information can’t be controlled anywhere near to the degree it used to, and our overemphasis on individual car ownership means a great deal of mobility.

Quite frankly there is no slowing the rate of unwanted pregnancies except for physical separation of the sexes (yeah, right) or making “snip it and forget it” operations the norm. And the latter obviously can’t be applied to the teenage set, unfortunately.

Dark-Star on December 18, 2009 at 3:11 PM

Chris

So you would be okay with the number of abortions staying the same provided Roe v. Wade is overturned?

Chekote on December 18, 2009 at 3:07 PM

I would not be satisfied with that as an end result. It would be great progress from where we are right now. I am told over and over and over that it won’t happen that way, anyhow, by abortion advocates; they insist that allowing limits or conditions or provisions to abortion access will stop abortions that ought to happen and would happen if women can get an abortion on demand.

Chris_Balsz on December 18, 2009 at 3:13 PM

Was she not practicing what we now call medicine? I doubt she has a license and besides the operating room is not what I would call sterile.

Sadly

/

CWforFreedom on December 18, 2009 at 3:17 PM

Perhaps Ed Morrissey can enlighten us and tell us what is the point of thread after thread on the abortion issue? I respectfully don’t see that his threads advance the ball at all. If people here are serious about wanting to reduce the number of abortions in the country, then we have to find practical – I do mean practical – way of reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies.

Chekote on December 18, 2009 at 3:06 PM

This is a BLOG – the print stories that interest them and that they think will interest their readers. I heard about this story from my mother who actually lives in the area where it took place, but I am not most people. The way the law enforcement officials spoke to the press regarding this case clearly insinuated that they believed something should be done, but for whatever reason (and the VPBA does seem to provide an avenue of prosecution) couldn’t be. That is news. If the law prohibits any prosecution of murderers, then it should be discussed. The point being, it is a BLOG, discussion is the purpose. And while I am at it – when was the last time you went after a “legitimate” news source for not checking their facts? The NYT and WaPo print stuff with no fact checks ALL THE TIME? Are you outraged there as well?

Govgirl on December 18, 2009 at 3:18 PM

A mother’s “choice” should extend to the age of, say, 90.

If she doesn’t like the “choice” she made – 45, 50, 90 years after the fact – then yes. Let’s have post abortion abortions.

Let’s give fathers the same choice too.

BowHuntingTexas on December 18, 2009 at 3:21 PM

No, the trial judge makes the call as to whether elements of the charge have been established enough for a jury trial.

The trial court’s ruling is appealable. You even mention the DA appealed and lost.

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

Huh? It was a state law, not a local rule. So, yes, the court of appeal would reverse a conviction because of it.

Blake on December 18, 2009 at 3:21 PM

The NYT and WaPo print stuff with no fact checks ALL THE TIME? Are you outraged there as well?

Govgirl on December 18, 2009 at 3:18 PM

You are funny. You should have put the / after that question unless you don’t know Chekote aka justanothertroll.

CWforFreedom on December 18, 2009 at 3:22 PM

Read the law.

Hotair has conveniently cherry picked.

Dave Rywall on December 18, 2009 at 2:58 PM

Not in the least.

Blake on December 18, 2009 at 3:23 PM

@ProudRino

Having just finished a Constitutional Law class at my law school last semester, I can state with some authority that the prevailing law is that abortion cannot be banned. A woman cannot be denied an abortion at any stage of pregnancy, although the government can regulate methods and processes, such as requiring that a doctor perform the procedure, etc. (and, yes, the government can have more regulations post-viability), but the government must allow any woman who can get a doctor to vouchsafe that her mental health is at risk to have an abortion at any stage of pregnancy, subject to medical regulation.

JohnJ on December 18, 2009 at 3:23 PM

This is why I hate my family members that are liberal. And I think they know it; Thanksgiving is always interesting.

They’d kill you themselves if you were on life support.

father on December 18, 2009 at 3:24 PM

To heck with it. Let’s just define murder as abortion and make it all legal.

/s

BowHuntingTexas on December 18, 2009 at 3:24 PM

Govgirl on December 18, 2009 at 3:09 PM
—–

Goddamn right the woman should be charged with 1st degree murder.

Dave Rywall on December 18, 2009 at 3:26 PM

No, the trial judge makes the call as to whether elements of the charge have been established enough for a jury trial.

The trial court’s ruling is appealable. You even mention the DA appealed and lost.

And the appeals court raises a very high bar to overcome the trial judge’s discretion. They expect such matters to be resolved by the Superior Court. They look for a serious error. If they don’t find it, they let the trial court’s ruling stand. If a trial judge had ruled the case could proceed to trial, and the defense appealed, the appellate panel would do it the same way.

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

Huh? It was a state law, not a local rule. So, yes, the court of appeal would reverse a conviction because of it.
Blake on December 18, 2009 at 3:21 PM

Dismissing a criminal case because charges were filed three times? That was reported as a Superior Court, Los Angeles County rule; not Code.

Chris_Balsz on December 18, 2009 at 3:28 PM

Blake

Spare me the self-rightious posturing. The statute clearly allows prosecution of the case. The point is that just about every week Hot Air serves red meat to its audience on this issue. I am tired of it and we rather spend time finding practical solutions to this highly emotional issue. Besides, I can’t go back to LGF because I was banned.

Chekote on December 18, 2009 at 3:02 PM

Up yours. No where in the story do they mention partial birth infanticide. No where in the story do they mention the evidence that would support a charge of partial birth infanticide. So, nothing about this story was clear.

The point is that Charles Johnson has a handful of subjects he screeches on and on about. His reporting on his few subjects sucks big time partially because he does not allow anyone to disagree with him. It is the most boring kiss azz place on the blogosphrere, which means it is perfect for you. Register under a different name.

I don’t give a sh*t that you are tired of it and I have no idea who you are referring to when you mention “we.” However, don’t let that stop you from leaving. Good bye.

Blake on December 18, 2009 at 3:29 PM

Jimbo3 on December 18, 2009 at 2:55 PM

Maybe this was covered, but it was not a quirk, the law was necessary at one time.
Baby’s were still born, and women were being charged with murder, so they attached to the law if the umbilical cord was attached it wasn’t “viable” and therefore the mother could not be wrongly charged.
As is often the case, no one thought that it would reach a point of being a “loophole”. That people would establish a huge market based on killing babies, that was inconceivable decades ago, before the liberals “great society”…
Why it was fought against changing, is the real problem…the law itself at the time was the right thing to do.
Times change, and the abortion fanatics aren’t thinking of the mother or child…just the paycheck attached.
They don’t get paid for having a baby born, Planned Parenthood doesn’t make money of mother’s…the make it off killing babies.

right2bright on December 18, 2009 at 3:29 PM

Time, NY Times, AP, CNN, MSMBC, NBC, ABC, CBS are fact challenged every day but old Charlie at lgf finds Ed didn’t look at the actual law and now Hot Air can be added to his list. Heads Up Lizards…no more HOT AIR for you…Charlie says. What a tool…go take some more overnight pics and spare us all. LOL…like you were ever right leaning.

~B

Brian on December 18, 2009 at 3:31 PM

Just send me “Moms” name and address I’ll happily mete out the appropriate punishment to this piece o crap.

Viper1 on December 18, 2009 at 3:32 PM

1) If there are Democrats running things in the area (like the DA’s office) I suspect they don’t want to prosecute under a partial-birth abortion act.

2) The reason the question of breath is important is because you can’t commit infanticide against a stillborn baby. If it never breathed, you can’t prove it came out breathing, no matter what someone did to it after it came out. If the baby breathed, it was not stillborn.

3) Unless upon the arrival of medical personnel ten hours after the birth placenta and umbilical were intact (highly unlikely but it can happen), who knows at what point in the birth process the “airway blockage” took place without an autopsy?

4) It’s really bad public policy to say infanticide is not infanticide if you did it really, really quickly. Abortion is expensive. Plastic bags are cheap.

Sekhmet on December 18, 2009 at 3:32 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

Prevention of Pregnany does not equal termination of pregnancy. Unless you hold life begins at Conception. Does God give souls at conception that turn out to be ectopic pregnancies? Or does he give them to proper pregnancies? If the latter is true, God does not give souls at conception and what is quantifiably human life does not begin at conception.

Holger on December 18, 2009 at 3:32 PM

Chekote on December 18, 2009 at 3:06 PM

You don’t have a degree in math, do you?
How many abortion threads, and how many threads are on HotAir every week.
Abortion is a hot topic, and when something like this (a mother killing a baby) comes along it is interesting…
But if you are bored…bye bye…

right2bright on December 18, 2009 at 3:33 PM

I am tired of it and we rather spend time finding practical solutions to this highly emotional issue.

Chekote

We have a practical solution to this issue: overturn the Court’s current jursiprudence so that states can make their own policies on abortion. Finding a practical solution is not the problem.

JohnJ on December 18, 2009 at 3:34 PM

The law is an ass.

paul1149 on December 18, 2009 at 3:37 PM

What specific language in Virginia’s criminal code allows this horrific situation?

RightOFLeft on December 18, 2009 at 3:38 PM

One thing for sure…lefties love death. Just read their posts. They are almost excited of such stories.

CWforFreedom on December 18, 2009 at 3:39 PM

Why not spend the time finding constructive, practical ways to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies in this country?

Chekote on December 18, 2009 at 2:53 PM
—–

So you want to discuss abstinance? That is the only way to prevent unwanted pregnancies 100%, but that is counter to your “it’s my body and I’ll do as I please” mindset.

thomasaur on December 18, 2009 at 3:41 PM

Sadly, guys – the kid is better off.

:(

RedNewEnglander on December 18, 2009 at 3:42 PM

Time, NY Times, AP, CNN, MSMBC, NBC, ABC, CBS are fact challenged every day but old Charlie at lgf finds Ed didn’t look at the actual law and now Hot Air can be added to his list. Heads Up Lizards…no more HOT AIR for you…Charlie says. What a tool…go take some more overnight pics and spare us all. LOL…like you were ever right leaning.

~B

Brian on December 18, 2009 at 3:31 PM

Reading his blog just now convinced me this story is bogus. *shrug*

fastestslug on December 18, 2009 at 3:42 PM

What specific language in Virginia’s criminal code allows this horrific situation?

RightOFLeft on December 18, 2009 at 3:38 PM

It isn’t that the law was wrong at the time…it was never changed as times changed.
Women were being charged with murder if their infant was still born…remember that hospital born babies is a modern “invention”, for the first 150 years of our country babies were born in the home.
It is only a “loophole” because society is accepting what was once unthinkable…

right2bright on December 18, 2009 at 3:48 PM

Being a Virginian myself, I thought it my civic duty to email the sheriff with the text of § 18.2-71.1. I’ll comment again here if I hear anything back.

hicsuget on December 18, 2009 at 3:50 PM

What specific language in Virginia’s criminal code allows this horrific situation?

RightOFLeft on December 18, 2009 at 3:38 PM

Specifically it states that if the umbilical cord is still attached and the baby dies, it is of “natural” causes, the mother cannot be held liable…

right2bright on December 18, 2009 at 3:50 PM

Liberal Lexicon:

Reducing unwanted preganancies: Finding ways to allow our daughters to be as promiscuous as possible without fear of pregnancy/punishment (or letting the parents find out).

Abstinence: Violation of Civil Rights.

BobMbx on December 18, 2009 at 3:52 PM

What specific language in Virginia’s criminal code allows this horrific situation?

RightOFLeft on December 18, 2009 at 3:38 PM

§ 18.2-71.1.3.5(a(III.T.(1))) “I won.”

BobMbx on December 18, 2009 at 3:56 PM

right2bright on December 18, 2009 at 3:48 PM

What’s the loophole? It looks like there’s a law on the books that unequivocally provides a basis for prosecution. So is there another law that contradicts the language in 18.2 or provides an exception or something? When you say:

It isn’t that the law was wrong at the time…

Which law are you talking about? Thanks in advance.

RightOFLeft on December 18, 2009 at 3:58 PM

Obama: “We are on the precipice of making sure all children receive proper health care irrespective of the parents ability to pay.”

csdeven on December 18, 2009 at 3:58 PM

It doesn’t matter if they change the law or not. Even with criminal charges, the mother would have gotten off due to psychiactric issues/loopholes (the worse the crime, the “crazier” she must have been).

Psychiatry has the final word, so don’t waste your time.

nottakingsides on December 18, 2009 at 4:01 PM

And the appeals court raises a very high bar to overcome the trial judge’s discretion. They expect such matters to be resolved by the Superior Court. They look for a serious error. If they don’t find it, they let the trial court’s ruling stand. If a trial judge had ruled the case could proceed to trial, and the defense appealed, the appellate panel would do it the same way.

Bullsh*t. The case got kicked out at the prelim hearing stage. All the DA had to do is put on some evidence of each element of the crime and some evidence that the defendant did it. It is a very low standard for the prosecution. On appeal, the court of appeal reviews it de novo, i.e., they substitute their own judgement for that of the magistrate.

Dismissing a criminal case because charges were filed three times? That was reported as a Superior Court, Los Angeles County rule; not Code.

Chris_Balsz on December 18, 2009 at 3:28 PM

First, the DA could not legally file a third time on the same charges. Second, googling around, it is not reported as a local rule but state law. Three, how it may have been reported is irrelevant in that it is a state law.

Blake on December 18, 2009 at 4:09 PM

I am tired of it and we rather spend time finding practical solutions to this highly emotional issue.

Chekote

No doubt there are blogs where that is their underlying goal find one or pass up this type of thread at HA.

katiejane on December 18, 2009 at 4:12 PM

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/35388_Facts_Not_a_Stumbling_Block_for_Morrissey

bridgetown on December 18, 2009 at 4:07 PM

Why feed the assclowns stats by linking to his pathetic little site

Viper1 on December 18, 2009 at 4:12 PM

This thread is missing the loving arms of Moloch.

daesleeper on December 18, 2009 at 4:14 PM

Give the liberal Left an inch, they take a life.

maverick muse on December 18, 2009 at 4:14 PM

It doesn’t matter if they change the law or not. Even with criminal charges, the mother would have gotten off due to psychiactric issues/loopholes (the worse the crime, the “crazier” she must have been).

Psychiatry has the final word, so don’t waste your time.

nottakingsides on December 18, 2009 at 4:01 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

Can any of you liberals justify this one?

Suffolk, VA woman shoots self in stomach to kill unborn baby and goes free

uknowmorethanme on December 18, 2009 at 4:22 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

This is true, it’s just that the media sensationalizes insanity cases. From Wikipedia:

According to an eight-state study the insanity defense is used in less than 1% of all court cases and is only successful in 26% of cases. Of those cases that were successful, 90% of defendants had been previously diagnosed with mental illness.

uknowmorethanme on December 18, 2009 at 4:26 PM

The point is that just about every week Hot Air serves red meat to its audience on this issue. I am tired of it and we rather spend time finding practical solutions to this highly emotional issue. Besides, I can’t go back to LGF because I was banned.

Chekote on December 18, 2009 at 3:02 PM

Now why would a site called “Hot Air” engage in heated discussions and post things with a strong perspective to drive traffic?

I mean, it’s totally unfathomable.

TheUnrepentantGeek on December 18, 2009 at 4:30 PM

This is just horrendous.

Terrye on December 18, 2009 at 4:32 PM

What about Safe Haven Law? Do they have that in VA? Gee if someone drops a baby in a basket (or however) on my doorstep, I’d fight for custody. Anyhoo, I am half stocked with baby goods anyways.

Sorry, mama grizzly bear kicks in.

ProudPalinFan on December 18, 2009 at 4:35 PM

A not-guilty verdict does not necessarily mean that a person hasn’t committed a crime.

Horrible crimes like this often get unpunished in this lifetime. That doesn’t mean that the crime will go unpunished in the next. As a christian, on one side, I am glad to know that all evil will be accounted for. On the other side, I fear the God whos own wrath righteously will raise against my own evil deeds.

Thankfully, God the father allowed his own wrath to fall upon his only son instead of upon those who repent and believe.

shick on December 18, 2009 at 4:36 PM

Horrible, Horrible, Horrible!! My first thought: Obama would support the woman and would likely argue against the pending legislation.

ihasurnominashun on December 18, 2009 at 5:22 PM

In 1973, when Roe v.Wade was decided, I mentioned something about a slippery slope.

I was mocked mercilessly then and since. Well, that slippery slope has arrived. The baby is born, is breathing, but because the umbilical cord is still attached, the child can be killed.

How about we kill the child within two days of birth?

Any takers? What’s the damn difference?

patch on December 18, 2009 at 5:35 PM

Why isn’t this covered as murder under common law?

Sackett on December 18, 2009 at 5:38 PM

BowHuntingTexas on December 18, 2009 at 3:21 PM

This.

It seems as though many liberals are still attached to their mother’s umbilical cord (still living at home, in the basement). You are definitely on to something.

rukiddingme on December 18, 2009 at 5:43 PM

Why not spend the time finding constructive, practical ways to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies in this country?

Chekote on December 18, 2009 at 2:53 PM

Wear a condom. Problem solved you stupid liberal troll. But no, we have to pay for the aborted lives that irresponsible morons create.

Start holding stupid people accountable and stop kissing their butts and fondling them every step of the way only to bail them out when they act like the stupid people we already know they are.

uknowmorethanme on December 18, 2009 at 5:43 PM

This is what you get when you get idiots (abortion supporters) who devalue human life. In their eyes, that baby with the beating heart is nothing but a wretched piece of meat to be destroyed. They want their pets treated better than babies in the womb.

And this:

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.

So, if you deliver half your baby’s body and beat it to death with a club, then it’s legal and fine? See how slippery the slope is when you devalue like at all?

TheBlueSite on December 18, 2009 at 5:48 PM

Why not spend the time finding constructive, practical ways to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies in this country?

Chekote on December 18, 2009 at 2:53 PM

Easy, if you’re not ready for a baby, don’t have sex. If you can’t deal with the possible consequences of ANY action, you shouldn’t be partaking in the activity. This goes for EVERYTHING in life. Somehow, we’ve devalued life so much in this country, that we take that approach with everything except sex…somehow it’s okay to screw all you want, to hell with the consequences.

TheBlueSite on December 18, 2009 at 5:50 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

I hope to God all of you pro abortion people are very proud.This not a nonviable tissue mass it is a living human being .GOD save us.

thmcbb on December 18, 2009 at 6:00 PM

what color is the mother?

pabarge on December 18, 2009 at 6:18 PM

Uhhhh Virginia…I just crossed you off my list of possible vacation places. Unfortunately due to the pervasive disease of moronism, the list is extremely short, now.

Nalea on December 18, 2009 at 6:20 PM

pabarge on December 18, 2009 at 6:18 PM

F**k you dude, that’s got nothing to do with this and makes the blog look bad.

abobo on December 18, 2009 at 6:26 PM

what color is the mother?

pabarge on December 18, 2009 at 6:18 PM

What the heck does that matter?

bridgetown on December 18, 2009 at 6:29 PM

May she get raped by an AIDS case and die a VERY slow painful death ! C**t!

cableguy615 on December 18, 2009 at 6:30 PM

May she get raped by an AIDS case and die a VERY slow painful death ! C**t!

cableguy615 on December 18, 2009 at 6:30 PM

Charles at LGF is going to Love this one!

bridgetown on December 18, 2009 at 6:38 PM

Charles at LGF is going to Love this one!

bridgetown on December 18, 2009 at 6:38 PM

I will offer the proverbial hat-tip !

cableguy615 on December 18, 2009 at 6:39 PM

I predicted years ago that the next stage would be to allow the parents some time to see if they could bond with the newborn child while it is still connected to the umbilical cord before giving the thumb up or thumb down. They could even put the baby back in the womb, or at least put it partially back into the birth canal, before killing it, if the mother has a change of heart later on.

It’s ridiculous that the federal partial birth abortion law wouldn’t cover this but I guess that only defined a specific procedure. Republicans in Congress should offer up a bill that cover things like this that go beyond the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, and let the liberal in Congress defend this kind of post-birth murder with their votes.

Buddahpundit on December 18, 2009 at 6:42 PM

How about we kill the child within two days of birth?

Any takers? What’s the damn difference?

patch on December 18, 2009 at 5:35 PM

Why not ?? Hell as far as liberals think I wouldn’t be surprised if we hear a few years down the road , some sick twisted f–k kills her 1-year old, because he/she is not walking yet. Defense: “Well your honor the baby was not developing in due time and thus can still be treated as a part of her own body as an immobile component ….blah blah blah …..”

cableguy615 on December 18, 2009 at 6:44 PM

LGF is advocating for prison rape.

This is why I am glad conservatives told Charles Johnson and his creepy sycophants to hit the road.

Blake on December 18, 2009 at 6:49 PM

She is not going to prison.

cableguy615 on December 18, 2009 at 6:54 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4