joys of liberalism: mother kills newborn, can't be charged

[Darth Executor]

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/12/1...ed-with-crime/

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.“

I love how they say she can't be charged because of a "loophole". It's not a loophole, dumbasses, it's intentional.

[Rainbow Brite]

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/12/1...ed-with-crime/

I love how they say she can't be charged because of a "loophole". It's not a loophole, dumbasses, it's intentional.

Related:

Lawmakers work to change baby killing loophole

[EvoUK]

Well that's a silly law...

[Chocobear]

It's a disgusting law, and it is just one more piece of evidence that shows just how far we as a society have drifted away from God. How can we ask God to bless America, when there are so many people who believe it's okay to murder a baby - even when it's outside its mother's womb?!

[Bill the Cat]

Well, according to the comments, the investigator got the statute wrong.


Code of Virginia 18.2-71.1. Partial birth infanticide; penalty.

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

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



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

[Darth Executor]

Well, according to the comments, the investigator got the statute wrong.

Bill, read the last update here:

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/12/1...ed-with-crime/

It only applies when killing the fetus of another. If you kill your own child, it's legal.

Also, from your link:

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

What if the mother is the "physician"? The law essentially states she cannot be prosecuted for her own criminal offense.

[Bill the Cat]

Bill, read the last update here:

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/12/1...ed-with-crime/

It only applies when killing the fetus of another. If you kill your own child, it's legal.

That statute is from 18.2-32.2.

Also, from your link:

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

What if the mother is the "physician"? The law essentially states she cannot be prosecuted for her own criminal offense.

Unless she is licensed in Virginia as a physician, she can not practice medecine, and thus, would not be covered by that hypothetical.

I've sent an email to the author or the story at the Roanoke NBC affiliate, asking her about why they didn't use 18.2-71.1. Partial birth infanticide. She's out of the office until the 28th. I'll post her reply when i get it.

[Darth Executor]

Ok. Though I'd imagine the investigators and the DA would know local law well enough. Maybe there's some legal precedent covering her?

Unless she is licensed in Virginia as a physician, she can not practice medecine, and thus, would not be covered by that hypothetical.

Or, she could just be charged with practicing without license.

edit: I think I caught the problem:

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

In other words, this stature only covers human infants who have been born alive AND who have not been completely extracted or expelled from its mother. In this case, the child was completely expelled from his mother and the case would thus fall under the stature I posted earlier. In other words, 18.2-71.1 is not applicable to this case.

[Pilgrim]

But if the child is completely expelled then the regular statutes for homicide take over right?

[Darth Executor]

But if the child is completely expelled then the regular statutes for homicide take over right?

I don't know for sure. I can't find a legal definition of fetus. I'm guessing the child is still considered a fetus until the umbilical cord is cut (since that's what the cops said is making a difference) and thus covered by this provision.

[Bill the Cat]

The author of the article graciously responded:

The reason they cannot charge her is a 1979 court ruling that interprets the code. The General Assembly is working to clarify the code.
AH

[cberman]

The fact is, since abortions are considering proper in some circumstances (whatever your opinions on that), a line must be drawn somewhere. When particular cases rub up against that line, it will seem arbitrary precisely because it is arbitrary.

I'm of the opinion that banning all abortions would be more wrong than promoting an arbitrary line, but I digress.

[Tickle Me Mercury]

The fact is, since abortions are considering proper in some circumstances (whatever your opinions on that), a line must be drawn somewhere. When particular cases rub up against that line, it will seem arbitrary precisely because it is arbitrary.

I'm of the opinion that banning all abortions would be more wrong than promoting an arbitrary line, but I digress.

While some disagree on where that "arbitrary" line might be, I think that everyone agrees that it's somewhere before "after the baby is born".

[cberman]

While some disagree on where that "arbitrary" line might be, I think that everyone agrees that it's somewhere before "after the baby is born".

That's not where the law is.

When crafting a law to outline the arbitrary boundary, a greater degree of complexity appears needed than just 'before the baby is born.'

[The Moonshield]

The fact is, since abortions are considering proper in some circumstances (whatever your opinions on that), a line must be drawn somewhere. When particular cases rub up against that line, it will seem arbitrary precisely because it is arbitrary.

The problem (one among a thousand, at least) is that in this case, the line is drawn in a place that makes suffocating a living, breathing baby, the most helpless of human beings, perfectly acceptable.

Wherever you stand on the abortion issue, If you don't find something horribly, horribly wrong with that, then you're not so much a man as you are a disgusting little pile of maggot excrement.