Woman charged with felony for having a stillbirth

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is not being charged with having a stillborn. She is being charged for abuse of a corpse for leaving the dead baby in the toilet.

Still stupid. She had a miscarriage. The "baby" was never alive. She was probably not feeling great, confused, panicked, etc. There was likely blood, she didn't know what to do. Hell, maybe it was too slippery to pick up. Maybe she felt faint. Why the hell should someone be subjected to criminal prosecution for this?

Did you even bother to read the story? She went about her day. Then came home to plunged the clogged toilet.

We don't know that she went about her day. The only person who said that is the prosecutor. Someone had to be the one to call police, maybe it was her.

Maybe it was Jimmy Hoffa
Maybe it was Obama
Maybe it was God

We could do this all day

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reality is that the baby was 20 weeks old and she delivered at 22 weeks. At 20 weeks it’s considered a miscarriage at 22 weeks. It’s considered stillborn.

What she flushed was only 20 weeks old.

And had 2 weeks of decomposition.

Please show me proof of this assertion.

The facts of this woman having an already-dead fetus (as testified to in a court of law by the forensic doctor who did the autopsy) falling out of her uterus is not enough proof to prove whatever weirdo point you’re trying to make?

Okay.

Why does it matter to you how much decomposition the dead fetus had when it was expelled from this mother’s body? It was dead already regardless.

It’s 100% relevant if someone is claiming that it had 2 weeks worth of decomposition. If it died right before delivery it would have looked like an actual fetus, not a partially decomposed mess as some are claiming. That matters.

They made it up. No news report says that there were no time line's for the hospital visits.

Of course they did. They’ve fabricated an entire narrative with zero evidence.

Pro tip: if you have to make stuff up to prove your point, you don’t have much of a point.

Compassionate tip: don’t be a ghoul.

This woman lost her child.

Yes. That she flushed down the toilet. Talk about being a ghoul.

You have never had a miscarriage, have you. Or bled profusely into a toilet. Or known what it's like to be scared and alone during a pregnancy crisis. Or had to stick your hand into a toilet bowl filled with disgusting bodily excretions to try to fish out a fetus among the clots and blood and possibly even poop and wet tp. I bet you wouldn't even be brave enough to try to do it if you saw such a horrifying scene.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reality is that the baby was 20 weeks old and she delivered at 22 weeks. At 20 weeks it’s considered a miscarriage at 22 weeks. It’s considered stillborn.

What she flushed was only 20 weeks old.

And had 2 weeks of decomposition.

Please show me proof of this assertion.

The facts of this woman having an already-dead fetus (as testified to in a court of law by the forensic doctor who did the autopsy) falling out of her uterus is not enough proof to prove whatever weirdo point you’re trying to make?

Okay.

Why does it matter to you how much decomposition the dead fetus had when it was expelled from this mother’s body? It was dead already regardless.

It’s 100% relevant if someone is claiming that it had 2 weeks worth of decomposition. If it died right before delivery it would have looked like an actual fetus, not a partially decomposed mess as some are claiming. That matters.

They made it up. No news report says that there were no time line's for the hospital visits.

Of course they did. They’ve fabricated an entire narrative with zero evidence.

Pro tip: if you have to make stuff up to prove your point, you don’t have much of a point.

Compassionate tip: don’t be a ghoul.

This woman lost her child.

She's didn't have an compassion when she went about her day and came back with a plunger to unclog her dead toilet baby. She had no compassion for her child at all. Some would say that's gloulish.

What does it mean that she "went about her day"? Please be specific. Timeline and all that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reality is that the baby was 20 weeks old and she delivered at 22 weeks. At 20 weeks it’s considered a miscarriage at 22 weeks. It’s considered stillborn.

What she flushed was only 20 weeks old.

And had 2 weeks of decomposition.

Please show me proof of this assertion.

The facts of this woman having an already-dead fetus (as testified to in a court of law by the forensic doctor who did the autopsy) falling out of her uterus is not enough proof to prove whatever weirdo point you’re trying to make?

Okay.

Why does it matter to you how much decomposition the dead fetus had when it was expelled from this mother’s body? It was dead already regardless.

It’s 100% relevant if someone is claiming that it had 2 weeks worth of decomposition. If it died right before delivery it would have looked like an actual fetus, not a partially decomposed mess as some are claiming. That matters.

They made it up. No news report says that there were no time line's for the hospital visits.

Of course they did. They’ve fabricated an entire narrative with zero evidence.

Pro tip: if you have to make stuff up to prove your point, you don’t have much of a point.

Compassionate tip: don’t be a ghoul.

This woman lost her child.

She's didn't have an compassion when she went about her day and came back with a plunger to unclog her dead toilet baby. She had no compassion for her child at all. Some would say that's gloulish.

What does it mean that she "went about her day"? Please be specific. Timeline and all that.

DP
We don’t have that information yet. That’s just what the article said. But we’ll find out soon enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The report states the child’s corpse showed signs of injury.

no sh*t. the baby died in utero and may have had a congenital defect. do you know what happens to dead fetuses in utero? they start to disintegrate.

The POLICE said it had signs of injury. They aren't experts in still births. In fact "Forensic pathologist Dr. George Sterbenz testified an autopsy found no injury to the fetus, and that the unborn fetus had died before passing through the birth canal."

https://www.wkbn.com/news/local-news/warren-news/trumbull-county-grand-jury-to-hear-abuse-of-corpse-case/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reality is that the baby was 20 weeks old and she delivered at 22 weeks. At 20 weeks it’s considered a miscarriage at 22 weeks. It’s considered stillborn.

What she flushed was only 20 weeks old.

And had 2 weeks of decomposition.

Please show me proof of this assertion.

The facts of this woman having an already-dead fetus (as testified to in a court of law by the forensic doctor who did the autopsy) falling out of her uterus is not enough proof to prove whatever weirdo point you’re trying to make?

Okay.

Why does it matter to you how much decomposition the dead fetus had when it was expelled from this mother’s body? It was dead already regardless.

It’s 100% relevant if someone is claiming that it had 2 weeks worth of decomposition. If it died right before delivery it would have looked like an actual fetus, not a partially decomposed mess as some are claiming. That matters.

They made it up. No news report says that there were no time line's for the hospital visits.

Of course they did. They’ve fabricated an entire narrative with zero evidence.

Pro tip: if you have to make stuff up to prove your point, you don’t have much of a point.

Compassionate tip: don’t be a ghoul.

This woman lost her child.

She's didn't have an compassion when she went about her day and came back with a plunger to unclog her dead toilet baby. She had no compassion for her child at all. Some would say that's gloulish.

What does it mean that she "went about her day"? Please be specific. Timeline and all that.

DP
We don’t have that information yet. That’s just what the article said. But we’ll find out soon enough.

You do know that prosecutors can lie, it’s legal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The report states the child’s corpse showed signs of injury.

no sh*t. the baby died in utero and may have had a congenital defect. do you know what happens to dead fetuses in utero? they start to disintegrate.

The POLICE said it had signs of injury. They aren't experts in still births. In fact "Forensic pathologist Dr. George Sterbenz testified an autopsy found no injury to the fetus, and that the unborn fetus had died before passing through the birth canal."

https://www.wkbn.com/news/local-news/warren-news/trumbull-county-grand-jury-to-hear-abuse-of-corpse-case/

Enough with the disintegration bs. There is no evidence of this. At all.

[Anonymous]

How states use abuse of corpse laws against women:
https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/xgyh-5k59/download

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reality is that the baby was 20 weeks old and she delivered at 22 weeks. At 20 weeks it’s considered a miscarriage at 22 weeks. It’s considered stillborn.

What she flushed was only 20 weeks old.

And had 2 weeks of decomposition.

Please show me proof of this assertion.

The facts of this woman having an already-dead fetus (as testified to in a court of law by the forensic doctor who did the autopsy) falling out of her uterus is not enough proof to prove whatever weirdo point you’re trying to make?

Okay.

Why does it matter to you how much decomposition the dead fetus had when it was expelled from this mother’s body? It was dead already regardless.

It’s 100% relevant if someone is claiming that it had 2 weeks worth of decomposition. If it died right before delivery it would have looked like an actual fetus, not a partially decomposed mess as some are claiming. That matters.

They made it up. No news report says that there were no time line's for the hospital visits.

Of course they did. They’ve fabricated an entire narrative with zero evidence.

Pro tip: if you have to make stuff up to prove your point, you don’t have much of a point.

Compassionate tip: don’t be a ghoul.

This woman lost her child.

She's didn't have an compassion when she went about her day and came back with a plunger to unclog her dead toilet baby. She had no compassion for her child at all. Some would say that's gloulish.

What does it mean that she "went about her day"? Please be specific. Timeline and all that.

DP
We don’t have that information yet. That’s just what the article said. But we’ll find out soon enough.

You do know that prosecutors can lie, it’s legal.

Like I said, we don’t have that information yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The report states the child’s corpse showed signs of injury.

It was a non-viable fetus.

A non viable fetus doesn’t show signs of injury.

of course it can. do you know what happens to a dead fetus in utero? it disintegrates.

Of course it does. And that is called fetal disintegration. A medical examiner will know what that is, and state that on the report. They will not call it injury. So you are 100% incorrect.

https://www.wkbn.com/news/local-news/warren-news/trumbull-county-grand-jury-to-hear-abuse-of-corpse-case/

"Forensic pathologist Dr. George Sterbenz testified an autopsy found no injury to the fetus, and that the unborn fetus had died before passing through the birth canal."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's pretty clear this prosecution is about getting a case on the record that gives personhood to a 2nd trimester fetus.

Yup. So a DEAD second trimester fetus will have more rights to its bodily autonomy than a living human woman. MAGA!

I love all you people coming on here who have never held a second-trimester fetus. Once it is outside the uterus it is no longer a fetus, it is a baby. I held my 22 week baby, the nurse dressed her, and took photos. Yes, that baby is worth the dignity of not being flushed down the toilet. It has nothing to do with being "MAGA," it has to do with being a mother. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, human about flushing a baby down the toilet. You haven't seen a baby outside the uterus at that stage of gestation, so I suggest you keep your small-minded, uninformed opinion to yourself.

You received medical care. The Catholic hospital this woman sought care at sent her home. Her baby died inside her body. From the report it was two weeks before her body ejected it. It was not the sane experience though you both suffers great losses, it’s not comparable.

You made up that it was a Catholic hospital and you made up she was sent home. So I will say she was offered a d&c twice and refused because she didn't want to pay.

+1
It is amazing the facts that have been literally fabricated out of thin air on this thread. The fetus was 20 weeks but was delivered at 22! The hospital refused her care! The hospital sent her home! The fetus was partially disintegrated! It was a Catholic hospital! The mother needed to be at work and couldn’t miss her shift!

You people are UNREAL.

The thread should be locked and deleted at this point.

Agree. Reporting now.

I just reported it too. This is 100% out of control and pretty shocking how many details they've made up in a few short hours it been posted. Discusting really.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The report states the child’s corpse showed signs of injury.

It was a non-viable fetus.

A non viable fetus doesn’t show signs of injury.

of course it can. do you know what happens to a dead fetus in utero? it disintegrates.

Of course it does. And that is called fetal disintegration. A medical examiner will know what that is, and state that on the report. They will not call it injury. So you are 100% incorrect.

https://www.wkbn.com/news/local-news/warren-news/trumbull-county-grand-jury-to-hear-abuse-of-corpse-case/

"Forensic pathologist Dr. George Sterbenz testified an autopsy found no injury to the fetus, and that the unborn fetus had died before passing through the birth canal."

We’ve already established there was no injury to the fetus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reality is that the baby was 20 weeks old and she delivered at 22 weeks. At 20 weeks it’s considered a miscarriage at 22 weeks. It’s considered stillborn.

What she flushed was only 20 weeks old.

And had 2 weeks of decomposition.

Please show me proof of this assertion.

The facts of this woman having an already-dead fetus (as testified to in a court of law by the forensic doctor who did the autopsy) falling out of her uterus is not enough proof to prove whatever weirdo point you’re trying to make?

Okay.

Why does it matter to you how much decomposition the dead fetus had when it was expelled from this mother’s body? It was dead already regardless.

It’s 100% relevant if someone is claiming that it had 2 weeks worth of decomposition. If it died right before delivery it would have looked like an actual fetus, not a partially decomposed mess as some are claiming. That matters.

They made it up. No news report says that there were no time line's for the hospital visits.

Of course they did. They’ve fabricated an entire narrative with zero evidence.

Pro tip: if you have to make stuff up to prove your point, you don’t have much of a point.

Compassionate tip: don’t be a ghoul.

This woman lost her child.

She's didn't have an compassion when she went about her day and came back with a plunger to unclog her dead toilet baby. She had no compassion for her child at all. Some would say that's gloulish.

What does it mean that she "went about her day"? Please be specific. Timeline and all that.

DP
We don’t have that information yet. That’s just what the article said. But we’ll find out soon enough.

You do know that prosecutors can lie, it’s legal.

Like I said, we don’t have that information yet.

Totally dystopian answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reality is that the baby was 20 weeks old and she delivered at 22 weeks. At 20 weeks it’s considered a miscarriage at 22 weeks. It’s considered stillborn.

What she flushed was only 20 weeks old.

And had 2 weeks of decomposition.

Please show me proof of this assertion.

The facts of this woman having an already-dead fetus (as testified to in a court of law by the forensic doctor who did the autopsy) falling out of her uterus is not enough proof to prove whatever weirdo point you’re trying to make?

Okay.

Why does it matter to you how much decomposition the dead fetus had when it was expelled from this mother’s body? It was dead already regardless.

It’s 100% relevant if someone is claiming that it had 2 weeks worth of decomposition. If it died right before delivery it would have looked like an actual fetus, not a partially decomposed mess as some are claiming. That matters.

They made it up. No news report says that there were no time line's for the hospital visits.

Of course they did. They’ve fabricated an entire narrative with zero evidence.

Pro tip: if you have to make stuff up to prove your point, you don’t have much of a point.

Compassionate tip: don’t be a ghoul.

This woman lost her child.

She's didn't have an compassion when she went about her day and came back with a plunger to unclog her dead toilet baby. She had no compassion for her child at all. Some would say that's gloulish.

What does it mean that she "went about her day"? Please be specific. Timeline and all that.

DP
We don’t have that information yet. That’s just what the article said. But we’ll find out soon enough.

You do know that prosecutors can lie, it’s legal.

Like I said, we don’t have that information yet.

Then come back when you have more information and let the adults talk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's pretty clear this prosecution is about getting a case on the record that gives personhood to a 2nd trimester fetus.

Yup. So a DEAD second trimester fetus will have more rights to its bodily autonomy than a living human woman. MAGA!

I love all you people coming on here who have never held a second-trimester fetus. Once it is outside the uterus it is no longer a fetus, it is a baby. I held my 22 week baby, the nurse dressed her, and took photos. Yes, that baby is worth the dignity of not being flushed down the toilet. It has nothing to do with being "MAGA," it has to do with being a mother. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, human about flushing a baby down the toilet. You haven't seen a baby outside the uterus at that stage of gestation, so I suggest you keep your small-minded, uninformed opinion to yourself.

You received medical care. The Catholic hospital this woman sought care at sent her home. Her baby died inside her body. From the report it was two weeks before her body ejected it. It was not the sane experience though you both suffers great losses, it’s not comparable.

You made up that it was a Catholic hospital and you made up she was sent home. So I will say she was offered a d&c twice and refused because she didn't want to pay.

+1
It is amazing the facts that have been literally fabricated out of thin air on this thread. The fetus was 20 weeks but was delivered at 22! The hospital refused her care! The hospital sent her home! The fetus was partially disintegrated! It was a Catholic hospital! The mother needed to be at work and couldn’t miss her shift!

You people are UNREAL.

The thread should be locked and deleted at this point.

Agree. Reporting now.

I just reported it too. This is 100% out of control and pretty shocking how many details they've made up in a few short hours it been posted. Discusting really.

Based on the known facts of the case, they have nothing to get riled up about. They needed to fabricate details to make their point. It’s sad really. They’re like those people that lie so much they actually start to believe that they’re telling the truth.