Woman charged with felony for having a stillbirth

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn't something need personhood to then be able to say it's desecration of a corpse? Is that the whole point of this?

Sort of.
The males involved are judging and condeming her for not treating her fetus like a baby and a person. To flush a BABY down a toilet is disgusting and heartless (even though these ignoramouses don't seem to realize women flush miscarriages all the time).

So even though the fetus was already dead, and even though most reasonable people flush a miscarriage, she got caught by the plumbing and now these horrified men have to make an example of her.

Can you imagine a world where men had the miscarriages?

+1

[Anonymous]

"I had a miscarriage and yes I flushed"

https://cafemom.com/parenting/217370-flushing-toilet-after-miscarriage/277454-i_wanted_it_to_be_anything_besides_the_end_of_another_pregnancy_nbsp

[Anonymous]

She needs to be held accountable period

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And here's a bunch of women online (ten years ago) talking about flushing their miscarriages.

https://community.babycenter.com/post/a46424752/anyone_flush_their_baby_down_the_toilet

Yes, six week miscarriage = flush. Stillborn child = corpse. The number is weeks is what is at play, just like with legal abortions. 15 week vs 42 weeks.

That is not a legal standard for miscarriages and corpses. Yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And here's a bunch of women online (ten years ago) talking about flushing their miscarriages.

https://community.babycenter.com/post/a46424752/anyone_flush_their_baby_down_the_toilet

Yes, six week miscarriage = flush. Stillborn child = corpse. The number is weeks is what is at play, just like with legal abortions. 15 week vs 42 weeks

Also, the hospital will have records about what they told her. They likely asked her if she wanted to “deliver” the stillborn, which probably would have cost $$. Or, they asked if she wanted to pass it naturally, which is obviously what she chose. Also, with addicts, it’s hard to know exactly how many weeks the baby is- could have been a broad range.

Where does it say she was an addict? Are you making that up?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She needs to be held accountable period

For what? Is a fetus a corpse if it was never alive? Does Ohio law spell that out for fetuses whose demise occurred before viability?

[Anonymous]

I have a few questions

1. Who called the police such that they investigated this?

2. What is the correct thing to do if you have a stillbirth over a toilet? Who do you call to help you with this? If I were to call 911 are operators trained to help me? Should I call a funeral home? Would they?

3. How is it prolife to turn a woman with ruptured membranes away from the hospital instead of doing everything possible to save the baby? If it can’t be saved, isn’t the pro life thing to do to get the woman a d and c and prevent complications? How come neither of these were done?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a few questions

1. Who called the police such that they investigated this?

2. What is the correct thing to do if you have a stillbirth over a toilet? Who do you call to help you with this? If I were to call 911 are operators trained to help me? Should I call a funeral home? Would they?

3. How is it prolife to turn a woman with ruptured membranes away from the hospital instead of doing everything possible to save the baby? If it can’t be saved, isn’t the pro life thing to do to get the woman a d and c and prevent complications? How come neither of these were done?

The baby probably wasn’t dead yet when she went to the hospital, and although her water had broken, she wasn’t in active labor. Under the 6 week ban in effect at the time, inducing labor at that point could have been construed as performing an abortion, which they could only legally do if the mother’s life was in imminent danger. You’re not in imminent danger in the first few hours after your water breaks. Your health has to deteriorate first. They weren’t legally permitted to treat her so they turfed her. This is considered pro life because an unborn, non viable baby has more political value than the vessel carrying it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And here's a bunch of women online (ten years ago) talking about flushing their miscarriages.

https://community.babycenter.com/post/a46424752/anyone_flush_their_baby_down_the_toilet

Yes, six week miscarriage = flush. Stillborn child = corpse. The number is weeks is what is at play, just like with legal abortions. 15 week vs 42 weeks

Also, the hospital will have records about what they told her. They likely asked her if she wanted to “deliver” the stillborn, which probably would have cost $$. Or, they asked if she wanted to pass it naturally, which is obviously what she chose. Also, with addicts, it’s hard to know exactly how many weeks the baby is- could have been a broad range.

Where does it say she was an addict? Are you making that up?

It doesn’t say that anywhere. PP is a racist POS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn't something need personhood to then be able to say it's desecration of a corpse? Is that the whole point of this?

I think so. That a Black woman is being publicly tormented to reach that point is probably just seen as a bonus by the people who are pushing this.

They are getting off by vilifying this poor woman. It’s disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a few questions

1. Who called the police such that they investigated this?

2. What is the correct thing to do if you have a stillbirth over a toilet? Who do you call to help you with this? If I were to call 911 are operators trained to help me? Should I call a funeral home? Would they?

3. How is it prolife to turn a woman with ruptured membranes away from the hospital instead of doing everything possible to save the baby? If it can’t be saved, isn’t the pro life thing to do to get the woman a d and c and prevent complications? How come neither of these were done?

The baby probably wasn’t dead yet when she went to the hospital, and although her water had broken, she wasn’t in active labor. Under the 6 week ban in effect at the time, inducing labor at that point could have been construed as performing an abortion, which they could only legally do if the mother’s life was in imminent danger. You’re not in imminent danger in the first few hours after your water breaks. Your health has to deteriorate first. They weren’t legally permitted to treat her so they turfed her. This is considered pro life because an unborn, non viable baby has more political value than the vessel carrying it.

But the fetus is clearly in imminent danger. If it has the same worth as the mother (or more as you say) why do you not treat it? Is there any hospital in the world where a person would be released or refused treatment (or where it is illegal to treat them) because we expect them to die in a few hours or a day? I’ve never heard of that.

That said I think the first two questions I asked are the most germane to the events here, not the third or which yes has legal and moral gaps that have been discussed many times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Because most of the people in this world hate women.

Because she is not subject to criminal prosecution for that. Not alive baby is a corpse, and you cannot just disasamble any dead body the way you feel like (to chop it in the pieces and put it in the freezer or to flush it in the toilet). That what she is charged with.

So you think this should be prosecuted as a felony?

If that state has this law, then yes, it should be prosecuted. We cannot just disregard the law. If there will be evidence that she is incompetent to stand a trial or that she was in such condition that she was not understanding what she is doing, then the judge or jury should find her not guilty. We cannot just let all criminals walk around just because we disagree with the law. If we want to follow the rule of law, then we have to follow the legal process.

You disregard the GD law all the time.
Ever gone over the speed limit?

Jfc you people.

[Anonymous]

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.

Very sorry about your baby. At least you had the luxury of being in a hospital to receive care, painkillers, deliver her on a bed, and where a nurse cleaned and dressed her to give back you to to hold. That is right and proper.

No one sent you home to deliver your preemie into a toilet with the expectations of you having fish it out with your own hand amidst all the blood, clots, uterine tissue, placenta, fecal matter, urine, and toilet paper in the water.

When you've experienced that horror story, without having any spouse or friendly faces next to you to help you out, come back and tell us about how we are all inhuman for supporting a woman who did go through it.

Oh, but they did send me home. Ten hours later when the baby was actually coming, I went back. After dropping a ton of blood in the toilet, experiencing the unbearable pain of childbirth, I still had the wherewithal to go back.

Oh but did you immediately stick your hands in your toilet and fish around with them to see if a fetus fell in there?

You wouldn't know, because you haven't been through it. When delivering a baby at 22 weeks you are quite sure when the baby comes out. It is an incredibly painful process, like any unmedicated labor. And were it to come out and land in a toilet with a lot of blood, you still cannot miss it. It is the size of a small doll. It is not, as many people here want to believe, some ball of goo. It is a baby. I have pictures of mine. She could not possibly have not seen it and yes, it would be very very easy to "fish" it out and wrap it in a towel, as any caring, loving mother would. I have been through it. You have not.

You said all of that but didn’t answer the question. Stop skirting around it and answer. Did YOU immediately stick your hands in your bloody toilet and fish around with them to see if a fetus fell in your toilet?

I currently take your non-answer as a No, you didn’t do this and had no idea whether a fetus was in there or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Because most of the people in this world hate women.

Because she is not subject to criminal prosecution for that. Not alive baby is a corpse, and you cannot just disasamble any dead body the way you feel like (to chop it in the pieces and put it in the freezer or to flush it in the toilet). That what she is charged with.

So you think this should be prosecuted as a felony?

If that state has this law, then yes, it should be prosecuted. We cannot just disregard the law. If there will be evidence that she is incompetent to stand a trial or that she was in such condition that she was not understanding what she is doing, then the judge or jury should find her not guilty. We cannot just let all criminals walk around just because we disagree with the law. If we want to follow the rule of law, then we have to follow the legal process.

My sister in Cleveland has had parts of her car stolen multiple times but the police don’t even take a report because “we don’t have the resources to prosecute these crimes.” Their recommendation was to park in her garage if she wants it to stoo happening. But the luckily they resources to prosecute this victimless crime.

[Anonymous]

I miscarried at 14 weeks but the fetus was only the size of a 9 week fetus because it was not developing normally. If the hospital sent her home to miscarry a fetus that was the size of a normally developed 22 week fetus, that is even more horrifying. I bet the fetus was not normally developed which is why they knew it was not viable. So probably not like flushing a little baby doll. But she was also probably in shock and while this isn’t great for the public plumbing system, it’s not a crime. What awful people these prosecutors are.