Woman charged with felony for having a stillbirth

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t “don’t flush a corpse” common knowledge? I mean it’s not a goldfish it’s a human.

My “common knowledge “ doesn’t cover miscarriages or stillbirths outside of a hospital setting.
Since yours apparently does, please describe, in as detailed a way as you can manage, what exactly “common knowledge “ would have someone do in this situation.

I would probably call 911 and ask for help, and follow their instructions. But I get that after going through something traumatic and being turned away from from the hospital, the poor woman was in shock, and didn’t know what to do.

Really, common sense doesn’t tell you not to add a dead baby to the public water supply? It was apparently large enough that she tried plunging it and it didn’t go down so we’re not talking about just a large glob of cells…

Common sense also tells you that if the fetus is too large to flush, the woman should have been admitted to the hospital and cared for there.

I’m applauding this comment. This is the first use of the term “common sense” in this thread that strikes me as being actual common sense.

Common sense says a fetus that falls out of your body into a toilet is not a still born. Also it’s under a bowl full of dark red blood. You c as not see what it looks like. Also large decal matter and toilet paper also clog a toilet.

So your common sense is quite ignorant.

Actually, yours is. To use your wording, a fetus/ the contents of a uterus can “fall out of your body” at any stage of pregnancy.

Your next comment: “ You c as not see what it looks like.” Is garbled. Perhaps you could fix it if you actually want a response?

I’m not sure what you mean by “decal matter”. Perhaps you meant to type “fecal”? “Decals” don’t seem terribly relevant to this discussion.

My point is that this woman should have been admitted to the hospital for treatment.


PP, your version of “common sense” combined here with ample “ignorance “ of your own, suggests that despite the bellicosity of your comment, you must be pretty blissful— if that old saying holds true.

Ignore my response I thought I was respond to something else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t “don’t flush a corpse” common knowledge? I mean it’s not a goldfish it’s a human.

My “common knowledge “ doesn’t cover miscarriages or stillbirths outside of a hospital setting.
Since yours apparently does, please describe, in as detailed a way as you can manage, what exactly “common knowledge “ would have someone do in this situation.

I would probably call 911 and ask for help, and follow their instructions. But I get that after going through something traumatic and being turned away from from the hospital, the poor woman was in shock, and didn’t know what to do.

Really, common sense doesn’t tell you not to add a dead baby to the public water supply? It was apparently large enough that she tried plunging it and it didn’t go down so we’re not talking about just a large glob of cells…

Common sense also tells you that if the fetus is too large to flush, the woman should have been admitted to the hospital and cared for there.

I’m applauding this comment. This is the first use of the term “common sense” in this thread that strikes me as being actual common sense.

And how do you know that it was the fetus that was "too large to flush," and not a flushing problem caused by a lot of tissues/toilet paper, placenta, etc?

DP. Either way, she should have been admitted to the hospital.

PP here, and I don't disagree. This was a horrible situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t “don’t flush a corpse” common knowledge? I mean it’s not a goldfish it’s a human.

My “common knowledge “ doesn’t cover miscarriages or stillbirths outside of a hospital setting.
Since yours apparently does, please describe, in as detailed a way as you can manage, what exactly “common knowledge “ would have someone do in this situation.

I would probably call 911 and ask for help, and follow their instructions. But I get that after going through something traumatic and being turned away from from the hospital, the poor woman was in shock, and didn’t know what to do.

Really, common sense doesn’t tell you not to add a dead baby to the public water supply? It was apparently large enough that she tried plunging it and it didn’t go down so we’re not talking about just a large glob of cells…

Common sense also tells you that if the fetus is too large to flush, the woman should have been admitted to the hospital and cared for there.

I’m applauding this comment. This is the first use of the term “common sense” in this thread that strikes me as being actual common sense.

And how do you know that it was the fetus that was "too large to flush," and not a flushing problem caused by a lot of tissues/toilet paper, placenta, etc?

(The person you’re replying to thinks that this woman should have been admitted to the hospital and treated by medical doctors instead of the forced birther laws effectively forcing the hospital to toss her out on her miscarrying butt. I tend to agree. She sought medical treatment. She was turned away, twice. She should not have been made to labor and deliver a dead or dying fetus all alone.)

My point was that the narrative that the fetus was "too big to flush" is also harmful, and that makes this even moreso a travesty.

However, the "too big to flush" idea seems to be picking up steam, and it's worth challenging just as much as the "went on about her day" phrasing -- the other thing I have questioned in this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t “don’t flush a corpse” common knowledge? I mean it’s not a goldfish it’s a human.

My “common knowledge “ doesn’t cover miscarriages or stillbirths outside of a hospital setting.
Since yours apparently does, please describe, in as detailed a way as you can manage, what exactly “common knowledge “ would have someone do in this situation.

I would probably call 911 and ask for help, and follow their instructions. But I get that after going through something traumatic and being turned away from from the hospital, the poor woman was in shock, and didn’t know what to do.

Really, common sense doesn’t tell you not to add a dead baby to the public water supply? It was apparently large enough that she tried plunging it and it didn’t go down so we’re not talking about just a large glob of cells…

Common sense also tells you that if the fetus is too large to flush, the woman should have been admitted to the hospital and cared for there.

I’m applauding this comment. This is the first use of the term “common sense” in this thread that strikes me as being actual common sense.

And how do you know that it was the fetus that was "too large to flush," and not a flushing problem caused by a lot of tissues/toilet paper, placenta, etc?

(The person you’re replying to thinks that this woman should have been admitted to the hospital and treated by medical doctors instead of the forced birther laws effectively forcing the hospital to toss her out on her miscarrying butt. I tend to agree. She sought medical treatment. She was turned away, twice. She should not have been made to labor and deliver a dead or dying fetus all alone.)

My point was that the narrative that the fetus was "too big to flush" is also harmful, and that makes this even moreso a travesty.

However, the "too big to flush" idea seems to be picking up steam, and it's worth challenging just as much as the "went on about her day" phrasing -- the other thing I have questioned in this thread.

Perhaps you could say more about what exactly it is that you’re challenging? How do you view this “narrative “ as also being “harmful”? As I follow this thread and the issues in general, I think it’s fair to say that most people understand that most very early miscarriages — one way or another— get flushed. At a certain— unspecified point, so far — a miscarriage or stillbirth almost certainly warrants some sort of medical attention. I’m horrified that this woman went TWICE to a hospital— yet was sent home to deal with this alone. I’d feel substantially less horrified if she had been, say, 8 weeks pregnant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t “don’t flush a corpse” common knowledge? I mean it’s not a goldfish it’s a human.

My “common knowledge “ doesn’t cover miscarriages or stillbirths outside of a hospital setting.
Since yours apparently does, please describe, in as detailed a way as you can manage, what exactly “common knowledge “ would have someone do in this situation.

I would probably call 911 and ask for help, and follow their instructions. But I get that after going through something traumatic and being turned away from from the hospital, the poor woman was in shock, and didn’t know what to do.

Really, common sense doesn’t tell you not to add a dead baby to the public water supply? It was apparently large enough that she tried plunging it and it didn’t go down so we’re not talking about just a large glob of cells…

Common sense also tells you that if the fetus is too large to flush, the woman should have been admitted to the hospital and cared for there.

I’m applauding this comment. This is the first use of the term “common sense” in this thread that strikes me as being actual common sense.

And how do you know that it was the fetus that was "too large to flush," and not a flushing problem caused by a lot of tissues/toilet paper, placenta, etc?

(The person you’re replying to thinks that this woman should have been admitted to the hospital and treated by medical doctors instead of the forced birther laws effectively forcing the hospital to toss her out on her miscarrying butt. I tend to agree. She sought medical treatment. She was turned away, twice. She should not have been made to labor and deliver a dead or dying fetus all alone.)

My point was that the narrative that the fetus was "too big to flush" is also harmful, and that makes this even moreso a travesty.

However, the "too big to flush" idea seems to be picking up steam, and it's worth challenging just as much as the "went on about her day" phrasing -- the other thing I have questioned in this thread.

Perhaps you could say more about what exactly it is that you’re challenging? How do you view this “narrative “ as also being “harmful”? As I follow this thread and the issues in general, I think it’s fair to say that most people understand that most very early miscarriages — one way or another— get flushed. At a certain— unspecified point, so far — a miscarriage or stillbirth almost certainly warrants some sort of medical attention. I’m horrified that this woman went TWICE to a hospital— yet was sent home to deal with this alone. I’d feel substantially less horrified if she had been, say, 8 weeks pregnant.

You (or another PP) applauded the point that "Common sense also tells you that if the fetus is too large to flush, the woman should have been admitted to the hospital and cared for there." I'd rather not perpetuate the idea that the fetus was "too big to flush." We don't know that, and it's already being used as a talking point to argue that this woman made inappropriate choices. That's not ground I am willing to cede. It paints her in a harmful light without necessarily being accurate. The more it gets repeated without being challenged, the more that version of events gets embedded as accurate.

If you (and the PP) had made it clear that we don't know the size of the fetus, but even if it were too big to flush, that would still be an argument that she should have been admitted and had this dealt with medically, I wouldn't have argued.

[Anonymous]

50+ pages? Are some people actually still criticizing this poor woman? WTF is wrong with you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of speculation and theories in favor of the flusher, we don't the whole story, what is her defense? Is it bills, payment concerns, was she intoxicated, scared, ignorance? No one was there and that's why we have a trial to find out and ensure justice is served. She can also sue the hospital if needed.

Her defense is that it is not a crime to dispose of a fetus. Women flush fetuses all the time.

The only difference between women who flush fetuses and don’t get charged with a crime and this woman is that her dead fetus was large enough to get lodged in the toilet, requiring the toilet to be dismantled to retrieve the fetus. Ohio law had better be incredibly specific about what you can flush. Had she miscarried this fetus 8 weeks earlier and successfully flushed it, there would be no crime. If Ohio doesn’t define exactly when it becomes a crime, she shouldn’t be convicted of anything.

Or, to be fair, that possibly there was a lot of tissue and other products flushed with the fetus that caused the blockage. Or that the plumbing was already possibly blocked byy someone or something else, and what she flushed was just enough to finish the blockage. (This can happen with normal-sized stool, too, if someone before you has partially blocked the pipes.)

The autopsy would give size, but given that you can clog a toilet just with sufficient toilet paper (and she was probably bleeding a lot), and that the placenta might have been passed and attempted to flush at the same time, we really can't assume size until an autopsy is available (if made public).

+1
For all we know, the placenta came out, too, and clogged the toilet. What I know is that this woman does not belong in prison because she didn't respond perfectly (whatever that would look like in this situation).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t “don’t flush a corpse” common knowledge? I mean it’s not a goldfish it’s a human.

My “common knowledge “ doesn’t cover miscarriages or stillbirths outside of a hospital setting.
Since yours apparently does, please describe, in as detailed a way as you can manage, what exactly “common knowledge “ would have someone do in this situation.

I would probably call 911 and ask for help, and follow their instructions. But I get that after going through something traumatic and being turned away from from the hospital, the poor woman was in shock, and didn’t know what to do.

Really, common sense doesn’t tell you not to add a dead baby to the public water supply? It was apparently large enough that she tried plunging it and it didn’t go down so we’re not talking about just a large glob of cells…

Common sense also tells you that if the fetus is too large to flush, the woman should have been admitted to the hospital and cared for there.

I’m applauding this comment. This is the first use of the term “common sense” in this thread that strikes me as being actual common sense.

And how do you know that it was the fetus that was "too large to flush," and not a flushing problem caused by a lot of tissues/toilet paper, placenta, etc?

(The person you’re replying to thinks that this woman should have been admitted to the hospital and treated by medical doctors instead of the forced birther laws effectively forcing the hospital to toss her out on her miscarrying butt. I tend to agree. She sought medical treatment. She was turned away, twice. She should not have been made to labor and deliver a dead or dying fetus all alone.)

My point was that the narrative that the fetus was "too big to flush" is also harmful, and that makes this even moreso a travesty.

However, the "too big to flush" idea seems to be picking up steam, and it's worth challenging just as much as the "went on about her day" phrasing -- the other thing I have questioned in this thread.

Perhaps you could say more about what exactly it is that you’re challenging? How do you view this “narrative “ as also being “harmful”? As I follow this thread and the issues in general, I think it’s fair to say that most people understand that most very early miscarriages — one way or another— get flushed. At a certain— unspecified point, so far — a miscarriage or stillbirth almost certainly warrants some sort of medical attention. I’m horrified that this woman went TWICE to a hospital— yet was sent home to deal with this alone. I’d feel substantially less horrified if she had been, say, 8 weeks pregnant.

You (or another PP) applauded the point that "Common sense also tells you that if the fetus is too large to flush, the woman should have been admitted to the hospital and cared for there." I'd rather not perpetuate the idea that the fetus was "too big to flush." We don't know that, and it's already being used as a talking point to argue that this woman made inappropriate choices. That's not ground I am willing to cede. It paints her in a harmful light without necessarily being accurate. The more it gets repeated without being challenged, the more that version of events gets embedded as accurate.

If you (and the PP) had made it clear that we don't know the size of the fetus, but even if it were too big to flush, that would still be an argument that she should have been admitted and had this dealt with medically, I wouldn't have argued.

Thank you for clarifying your point. I made both comments, and I agree with you completely.

What I was reacting to when I made the first (applauding) comment was less the issue of the size of the fetus— and more about the many people here who have trumpeted “common sense” as a weapon against this poor woman’s actions, while being completely unable themselves to articulate some commonly known and accepted plan of action that someone in this woman’s situation would both be aware of, and be able to implement in pain, under catastrophic stress, and alone.

My main points continue to be that she should have been admitted to a hospital for appropriate medical care, and that she deserves compassion and support — not legal charges and the loss of privacy that she’s been forced to deal with on top of a traumatic situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t “don’t flush a corpse” common knowledge? I mean it’s not a goldfish it’s a human.

My “common knowledge “ doesn’t cover miscarriages or stillbirths outside of a hospital setting.
Since yours apparently does, please describe, in as detailed a way as you can manage, what exactly “common knowledge “ would have someone do in this situation.

I would probably call 911 and ask for help, and follow their instructions. But I get that after going through something traumatic and being turned away from from the hospital, the poor woman was in shock, and didn’t know what to do.

Really, common sense doesn’t tell you not to add a dead baby to the public water supply? It was apparently large enough that she tried plunging it and it didn’t go down so we’re not talking about just a large glob of cells…

Common sense also tells you that if the fetus is too large to flush, the woman should have been admitted to the hospital and cared for there.

I’m applauding this comment. This is the first use of the term “common sense” in this thread that strikes me as being actual common sense.

And how do you know that it was the fetus that was "too large to flush," and not a flushing problem caused by a lot of tissues/toilet paper, placenta, etc?

(The person you’re replying to thinks that this woman should have been admitted to the hospital and treated by medical doctors instead of the forced birther laws effectively forcing the hospital to toss her out on her miscarrying butt. I tend to agree. She sought medical treatment. She was turned away, twice. She should not have been made to labor and deliver a dead or dying fetus all alone.)

My point was that the narrative that the fetus was "too big to flush" is also harmful, and that makes this even moreso a travesty.

However, the "too big to flush" idea seems to be picking up steam, and it's worth challenging just as much as the "went on about her day" phrasing -- the other thing I have questioned in this thread.

Perhaps you could say more about what exactly it is that you’re challenging? How do you view this “narrative “ as also being “harmful”? As I follow this thread and the issues in general, I think it’s fair to say that most people understand that most very early miscarriages — one way or another— get flushed. At a certain— unspecified point, so far — a miscarriage or stillbirth almost certainly warrants some sort of medical attention. I’m horrified that this woman went TWICE to a hospital— yet was sent home to deal with this alone. I’d feel substantially less horrified if she had been, say, 8 weeks pregnant.

You (or another PP) applauded the point that "Common sense also tells you that if the fetus is too large to flush, the woman should have been admitted to the hospital and cared for there." I'd rather not perpetuate the idea that the fetus was "too big to flush." We don't know that, and it's already being used as a talking point to argue that this woman made inappropriate choices. That's not ground I am willing to cede. It paints her in a harmful light without necessarily being accurate. The more it gets repeated without being challenged, the more that version of events gets embedded as accurate.

If you (and the PP) had made it clear that we don't know the size of the fetus, but even if it were too big to flush, that would still be an argument that she should have been admitted and had this dealt with medically, I wouldn't have argued.

Thank you for clarifying your point. I made both comments, and I agree with you completely.

What I was reacting to when I made the first (applauding) comment was less the issue of the size of the fetus— and more about the many people here who have trumpeted “common sense” as a weapon against this poor woman’s actions, while being completely unable themselves to articulate some commonly known and accepted plan of action that someone in this woman’s situation would both be aware of, and be able to implement in pain, under catastrophic stress, and alone.

My main points continue to be that she should have been admitted to a hospital for appropriate medical care, and that she deserves compassion and support — not legal charges and the loss of privacy that she’s been forced to deal with on top of a traumatic situation.

I agree with all of this completely, PP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am a woman who delivered two babies at 20 weeks and I can promise you, that woman did not sit on the toilet and just pop that dead baby out into the toilet and surprisingly hear a splash. Delivering a baby at that term, dead or alive, is every bit as painful as a full-term delivery--I know this, as I have done both, multiple times. You don't just go, oh, I have to pee, and then, hey what was that splash, oh, a baby! Then flush. This wasn't shock. This was foul play. She tried to flush a dead baby down the toilet. And everyone here knows why but won't say. She was very likely covering up a dead baby who had drugs in its system.

Did you read that she went to the hospital twice? That doesn’t read like a cover up to me.? I find interesting that you accuse her of doing drugs so she lost her baby. I assume you are drawing on your own experiences?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t “don’t flush a corpse” common knowledge? I mean it’s not a goldfish it’s a human.

My “common knowledge “ doesn’t cover miscarriages or stillbirths outside of a hospital setting.
Since yours apparently does, please describe, in as detailed a way as you can manage, what exactly “common knowledge “ would have someone do in this situation.

I would probably call 911 and ask for help, and follow their instructions. But I get that after going through something traumatic and being turned away from from the hospital, the poor woman was in shock, and didn’t know what to do.

Really, common sense doesn’t tell you not to add a dead baby to the public water supply? It was apparently large enough that she tried plunging it and it didn’t go down so we’re not talking about just a large glob of cells…

Common sense also tells you that if the fetus is too large to flush, the woman should have been admitted to the hospital and cared for there.

I’m applauding this comment. This is the first use of the term “common sense” in this thread that strikes me as being actual common sense.

And how do you know that it was the fetus that was "too large to flush," and not a flushing problem caused by a lot of tissues/toilet paper, placenta, etc?

(The person you’re replying to thinks that this woman should have been admitted to the hospital and treated by medical doctors instead of the forced birther laws effectively forcing the hospital to toss her out on her miscarrying butt. I tend to agree. She sought medical treatment. She was turned away, twice. She should not have been made to labor and deliver a dead or dying fetus all alone.)

My point was that the narrative that the fetus was "too big to flush" is also harmful, and that makes this even moreso a travesty.

However, the "too big to flush" idea seems to be picking up steam, and it's worth challenging just as much as the "went on about her day" phrasing -- the other thing I have questioned in this thread.

Perhaps you could say more about what exactly it is that you’re challenging? How do you view this “narrative “ as also being “harmful”? As I follow this thread and the issues in general, I think it’s fair to say that most people understand that most very early miscarriages — one way or another— get flushed. At a certain— unspecified point, so far — a miscarriage or stillbirth almost certainly warrants some sort of medical attention. I’m horrified that this woman went TWICE to a hospital— yet was sent home to deal with this alone. I’d feel substantially less horrified if she had been, say, 8 weeks pregnant.

Nowhere, in any story, does it say the woman was sent home. It says she visited the hospital. Again, the being sent home narrative is invented. Nobody knows.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t “don’t flush a corpse” common knowledge? I mean it’s not a goldfish it’s a human.

My “common knowledge “ doesn’t cover miscarriages or stillbirths outside of a hospital setting.
Since yours apparently does, please describe, in as detailed a way as you can manage, what exactly “common knowledge “ would have someone do in this situation.

I would probably call 911 and ask for help, and follow their instructions. But I get that after going through something traumatic and being turned away from from the hospital, the poor woman was in shock, and didn’t know what to do.

Really, common sense doesn’t tell you not to add a dead baby to the public water supply? It was apparently large enough that she tried plunging it and it didn’t go down so we’re not talking about just a large glob of cells…

Common sense also tells you that if the fetus is too large to flush, the woman should have been admitted to the hospital and cared for there.

I’m applauding this comment. This is the first use of the term “common sense” in this thread that strikes me as being actual common sense.

And how do you know that it was the fetus that was "too large to flush," and not a flushing problem caused by a lot of tissues/toilet paper, placenta, etc?

(The person you’re replying to thinks that this woman should have been admitted to the hospital and treated by medical doctors instead of the forced birther laws effectively forcing the hospital to toss her out on her miscarrying butt. I tend to agree. She sought medical treatment. She was turned away, twice. She should not have been made to labor and deliver a dead or dying fetus all alone.)

My point was that the narrative that the fetus was "too big to flush" is also harmful, and that makes this even moreso a travesty.

However, the "too big to flush" idea seems to be picking up steam, and it's worth challenging just as much as the "went on about her day" phrasing -- the other thing I have questioned in this thread.

Perhaps you could say more about what exactly it is that you’re challenging? How do you view this “narrative “ as also being “harmful”? As I follow this thread and the issues in general, I think it’s fair to say that most people understand that most very early miscarriages — one way or another— get flushed. At a certain— unspecified point, so far — a miscarriage or stillbirth almost certainly warrants some sort of medical attention. I’m horrified that this woman went TWICE to a hospital— yet was sent home to deal with this alone. I’d feel substantially less horrified if she had been, say, 8 weeks pregnant.

Nowhere, in any story, does it say the woman was sent home. It says she visited the hospital. Again, the being sent home narrative is invented. Nobody knows.

Well clearly she wasn't admitted. Even though she went twice. If she didn't want to be admitted why would she have gone back?

[Anonymous]

Courts will sort it out, next time call 911

[Anonymous]

My speculative interpretation is that the people at the Catholic charity home didn't know she was pregnant, and that it probably had to do with some sort of "live a moral lifestyle" expectation. She can't get help at hospitals, and she ends up miscarrying at the place that was shared with others. she tried to flush it, but there was probably placenta and a lot of stuff, and it got somewhere along the way. Plumbers were called, products of conception were found, and police were called because nobody (but her) knew what was going on.

I think she was probably panicked, already vulnerable to losing her place in the home, dealing with pain and blood loss and the loss of a pregnancy (which can be very traumatic, even if you are ambivalent about being able to handle it), and so many horrible things happening at once.

And it sounds like there was no possibility of life, and that the forensic examiner stated that the fetus never drew breath and was not damaged in the birth canal by instrumentation or anything else.

This is all *SPECULATION*, but it makes much more sense to me than drug use or anything like that. If she was using and tried to hide it, she wouldn't have sought medical help.

I think this is just horrible and tragic, and there is nothing at all that should be prosecuted. It highlights for me how vulnerable people are when they have to rely on religious-based assistance. I remember overhearing a Salvation Army counselor-type person in a diner, telling what sounded like an alcoholic man that he had to cut alcohol completely, cold turkey, or he would not be able to stay "at the house.' The man was disheveled and smelled bad, and it was snowing. But abrupt cessation of heavy drinking is a GREAT way to induce seizures and can be fatal.

I really dislike that people in poverty and in extremity often have to rely on people with other agendas when they are in medical distress.

Maybe this wasn't one of those times. It has that flavor to me, though. This is so sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Courts will sort it out, next time call 911

Why does a court need to sort it out? Why harass a woman who gave birth alone to a dead fetus, just because you’re grossed out by how she reacted to dealing with it?