When ‘Feticide’ Is Just Another Word For Unlawful Abortion

Bei Bei Shuai, 35, right, of Indianapolis, leans on her attorney, Linda Pence, as she leaves the Marion County Jail in Indianapolis on bail Tuesday, May 22, 2012. Shuai faces a December trial on charges of murder and... Bei Bei Shuai, 35, right, of Indianapolis, leans on her attorney, Linda Pence, as she leaves the Marion County Jail in Indianapolis on bail Tuesday, May 22, 2012. Shuai faces a December trial on charges of murder and feticide. Shuai, a Shanghai native, ate rat poison in a suicide attempt in December 2010 when she was 33 weeks pregnant. Her baby was delivered by Caesarian section and died three days later. A judge last week set a $50,000 bond for her release after an appeals court ruled the case against her wasn't strong enough to keep her in jail. The case has drawn the attention of medical and women's rights groups who say Shuai's prosecution endangers the rights of pregnant women and could prevent women from seeking prenatal care out of fear of criminal charges. (AP Photo/Charles D. Wilson) MORE LESS
Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

When Indiana woman Purvi Patel learned in mid-August that she was being charged with the crime of feticide, this wasn’t the first time she had been accused of “knowingly or intentionally terminating a human pregnancy with an intention other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead fetus.” Patel received a preliminary feticide charge when she was first arrested over a year earlier, a charge that was dropped in exchange for felony neglect.

This also wasn’t the first time that the state of Indiana tried to charge a pregnant person with feticide after not producing a live birth. The state was already years deep into the case of Bei Bei Shuai (pictured, right, with her attorney), a Chinese immigrant being charged with feticide when her premature infant died a few days after her birth, which prosecution claimed was caused by Shuai’s ingesting of rat poison in an attempt to kill herself. Those charges against Shuai were dropped in a plea deal that was finalized just a few weeks after Patel received her preliminary feticide charge.

At first glance, the two cases have little in common besides the feticide charge itself. One is a woman just a month shy of full term, suffering from depression but carrying a wanted child, who, once she entered the hospital did every thing the doctors asked in order to try to deliver her child in a healthy way and then keep that baby alive. The other, just barely out of her second trimester, allegedly sought and took drugs meant to induce a miscarriage and end the pregnancy, then according to police took repeated steps to hide the delivery, then lied to hospital personnel when she went in for follow up care due to vaginal bleeding.

A closer look shows these two feticide examples are very similar, however, and that they are setting a troubling precedent both for potential pregnant people in Indiana and, maybe, across the United States. Both women were charged on mostly circumstantial evidence (Shuai on the medically unproven assertion that the poison crossed the placental barrier, and a suicide note that said she was killing herself and taking the baby with her, Patel on text messages claiming she was purchasing medication from Hong Kong to try to self-abort), and both had hospital staff that alerted the police to alleged criminal conduct when the women came in for life saving care.

In fact, in the case of Patel, it was an additional doctor, who was brought in to provide a second opinion, which spun her medical emergency into a criminal case. After admitting she delivered at home to a stillborn fetus, which she said she put in a bag and placed in a dumpster, her new doctor went in search of the body. “Fearing for the child, Dr. McGuire then drove to the Super Target and began searching in the dumpsters,” states the police report. “He also called St. Joseph County Police, who joined the search. After searching numerous dumpsters, officers located the body in a dumpster behind Moe’s Southwest Grill. Dr. McGuire examined the body and determined it was deceased. After examining the body, Dr. McGuire’s opinion was that the child was pre-mature and roughly 30 weeks from conception. His external examination noted no reason why the child would not have survived but cautioned that it was based only upon an external examination.”

The fact that hospital staff are policing pregnant women for potential crime should terrify anyone who believes not just in bodily autonomy, but in the idea of hospitals as a place of safety and trust, not suspicion and punishment. The hospital staff had all of the information from Patel that they needed in order to treat her immediate medical emergency, but, because she arrived with signs of labor and delivery but no infant, they began their own investigation and contacted police in order to find the “missing” child and to gather evidence against Patel.

Even the two separate charges filed in the case – feticide and felony neglect – show that the state was determined to charge her with some crime, leaving options open for whether or not the fetus could be determined to be alive at the time of birth or not. As Sally Kohn explains at the Daily Beast, “Upon examination of the fetus by police and medical staff, prosecutors initially charged Patel with felony neglect, a class A felony in Indiana that carries a 20- to 50-year prison sentence. And yet under Indiana law, Patel could only be convicted of neglecting her dependent child if prosecutors could prove she gave birth to a live baby. So, to cover their bases, prosecutors also charged Patel with feticide, a class B felony.”

“The legal knot here is dumbfounding,” continued Kohn. “The State of Indiana intends to convict and incarcerate Purvi Patel one way or another, whether the fetus she delivered was alive or not—never mind the fact that the facts necessary for filing the one charge (that the fetus have been alive) entirely contradict the facts necessary for filing the other (that the fetus have been dead) and vice versa.”

Patel’s lawyer has told The Guardian that the return of the feticide charge is a sign that the state can’t prove felony neglect, which involves a living child. “I don’t think the state can prove a live birth,” he said. But as local lawyer Katherine Jack also told The Guardian, “[T]he state’s feticide law had never been intended to apply to pregnant women. It was initially framed to catch illegal abortion providers, and later expanded to include men who domestically abused their pregnant partners.”

That original use – to catch illegal abortion providers – is likely exactly where the state wants to go. Unlike the pre-Roe era, where a significant portion of those who sought illegal abortions received the procedure via outside illegal providers, today’s world of illegal abortions will be mostly self-induced miscarriages, making the pregnant person herself the “illegal provider” that must be charged.

We already saw Idaho dip their toe in the water on jailing pregnant women for self-induced miscarriage when they tested out “unlawful abortion” charges on Jennie Linn McCormack back in 2011. Prosecution had to drop the charges because they couldn’t find evidence proving that she did actually take medication, nor that even if she had, the medicines actually lead to her miscarriage of a roughly 20 week fetus. The Patel case, where there also appears to be no substantial proof that she took any abortion inducing drugs and, even if she had, her pregnancy was likely far too be certain the drugs actually could cause a miscarriage, could potentially end the same way.

Idaho called it “unlawful abortion” – an act meant to end a pregnancy that is performed by someone other than a licensed medical professional. Indiana is calling it “feticide” – knowingly or intentionally terminating a human pregnancy. In both cases, the statutes were written not to charge those who were pregnant, but to jail someone who might consider performing an illegal abortion on them. However, by whatever name a state picks, what is clear is that there is a growing movement to punish a person who chooses – whether out of financial necessity, lack of accessible clinics, mistrust of the medical profession or some other reason – to take self-abortion into her own hands. And yes, that means putting a person in jail if she is caught.

Even more disturbingly, they appear to be drawing hospital staff into their quest. Sadly, when a hospital can’t be trusted to treat a complication without opening a police report, we truly have a crisis on our hands.

Robin Marty is a freelance writer, speaker and activist. Her current project, Clinic Stories, focuses on telling the history of legal abortion one clinic at a time. Robin’s articles have appeared at Rolling Stone, Bitch Magazine, Ms. Magazine, In These Times, Truth Out, AlterNet, RH Reality Check and other publications.

Latest Cafe

Notable Replies

  1. A body was found in a dumpster and presumed it was hers ?

  2. Avatar for eykis eykis says:

    Instead of hand-wringing and promoting terror the US government should look at the ‘way too many states’ in the USA who are enacting draconian, illegal laws against the female population.

    Quit fretting over ISIS, start tossing imbeciles from the statehouses!

    Abortion is legal. A woman needs NO EXCUSE or REASON to obtain an abortion. We are already ‘back to the future’ with BACK ALLEY ABORTIONS THAT KILL OR IMPRISON REAL LIVE WOMEN!

    Sharia Law, welcome to America.

  3. Every sperm is sacred! Eggs not so much because they belong to icky girls and should be regulated.

  4. Feticide’s biblical justification:
    The Test for an Unfaithful Wife/ Numbers 5:11-21

    "11 Then the Lord said to Moses, 12 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure— 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah  of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing.
    16 “The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water.18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell.”
    http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-International-Version-NIV-Bible/

  5. Even more disturbingly, they appear to be drawing hospital staff into their quest. Sadly, when a hospital can’t be trusted to treat a complication without opening a police report, we truly have a crisis on our hands.

    This part of the piece bugs me greatly. Our hospitals need to work together with the police, it is very important that they do so. Often times, a hospital’s police report is the first point of contact in getting a child or a woman out of an abusive household. The reports of gunshot wounds from hospitals are important in stopping crime. This idea that hospitals should never ask questions or talk to the police is dangerous, naive, and quite frankly stupid.

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

26 more replies

Participants

Avatar for system1 Avatar for paulw Avatar for ajm Avatar for seashell Avatar for fgs Avatar for sysprog Avatar for bojimbo26 Avatar for rudesan Avatar for cvilledem Avatar for jimheartney Avatar for blueberrytomatosoup Avatar for sonsofares Avatar for radgal70 Avatar for captaincommonsense Avatar for apotropoxy Avatar for eykis Avatar for starbaby Avatar for dnl Avatar for darrtown Avatar for nelsonrobison Avatar for GaryMillRat

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Deputy Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: