Two abortionist doctors have been charged with murder for the deaths of babies killed during late term abortions under Maryland’s viable fetus law. From the CBS Baltimore story:
Two out-of-state doctors who traveled to Maryland to perform late-term abortions have been arrested and charged with multiple counts of murder under the state’s viable fetus law, authorities said…The two doctors were indicted by a grand jury after a 16-month investigation, police said. The investigation began in August 2010 after a botched procedure at Brigham’s Elkton clinic. An 18-year-old woman who was 21 weeks pregnant had her uterus ruptured and her bowel injured, and rather than call 911, Brigham and Riley drove her to a nearby hospital, where both were uncooperative and Brigham refused to give his name, authorities said. A search of the clinic after the botched abortion revealed a freezer with 35 late-term fetuses inside, including one believed to have been aborted at 36 weeks…
The specifics of this case aside–remember, these are still only allegations–late term abortions that kill viable babies are rightly considered murder. When pregnancy terminations must be done for therapeutic reasons after viability, the baby should be delivered, not killed. I am glad Maryland is enforcing its late term abortion law.
December 31st, 2011 | 2:38 am
I’m in total agreement with this law being enforced. Can’t those who are prolife and prochoice, at least agree that late term abortions are completely beyond the pale? I believe that human life and human personhood begins at conception. But obviously others disagree, but can’t we all at least agree that the late term abortions must be stopped? Unless one wishes to endorse the moral outlook of Peter Singer, (whose views on when personhood is reached, are utterly incoherent in my view) one would be wise to accept that late term fetuses have as many rights as newborns.
Most americans, I would guess, would find Singer’s moral views, vis a vis fetuses and newborns abhorrent (even if some may have some sympathy with some version of Utilitarianism), even prochoice americans. After all, George F. Will, brilliant conservative intellectual, who chooses his words very carefully, wouldn’t assert that Peter Singer is the prochoice side’s “worst nightmare” for nothing.
[Reply]
December 31st, 2011 | 10:31 am
Distinguishing between viable and non-viable fetuses still draws an arbitrary life as to when life would begin. In matters as important as when a personhood is attained, there should never be a morally arbitrary line drawn.
[Reply]
December 31st, 2011 | 10:39 am
I’m interested in the legal specifics of this case. My understanding is that Doe v. Bolton required all abortion laws, even those about late-term abortions, to contain a broad “health” exception that included factors such as “psychological health.” Some abortionists have taken advantage of this to perform late-term abortions at will by declaring that they are “necessary to the woman’s health.” And evidently all that the states can do to stop this is to pass requirements for, say, a second opinion on the “health” necessity. (In which case two doctors working together can still game the system.)
It _looks_ to me like what happened here was that one way and other these two abortionists (allegedly) did not jump through the required legal hoops before performing late-term abortions in Maryland. But exactly what hoops were those?
The thing is, a state really cannot have a _blanket_ prohibition on late-term abortions, so that can’t be what is being enforced in Maryland. Or if it is, the convictions will be overturned as “unconstitutional.” It looks like there must be something extra here, some particular extra way in which they were (allegedly) flouting the law.
[Reply]
holyterror Reply:
January 1st, 2012 at 1:42 am
@Lydia,
It is my understanding that there really is no serious enough law to charge these cretins, save murder, although technically it does not apply in this sense as it conflicts with abortion law.
The Baltimore Sun, interestingly, says it is an attempted application of the fetal homicide laws. I wonder if that is true.
What burns me up so much about this whole deal is that they have to be charged with murder *because Maryland has no strong legal regulations of abortion providers.* There are no laws to charge an abortionist for such gross misconduct. Punishment is still the provenance of professional certifying bodies.
What we need are good laws to allow the prosecution of negligent conduct in such cases. I put the question to our (sort of) new Health Commisioner here in Maryland, and he seemed vaguely intrigued by it but has done nothing so far that I can tell. You would think the Health Department would get involved. You would think that pro-choice advocates would get on board. You would think that these women — not to mention the children whose corpses were being kept in freezers in the office break room– would matter.
[Reply]
Lydia Reply:
January 1st, 2012 at 1:36 pm
@holyterror, There has to be a reason why they are applying fetal homicide laws in these cases. Something special about these cases. After all, the fetal homicide laws have exceptions for lawful abortion. They must have broken some other law to make it possible to prosecute them here. It’s the only way I can see it working. With the abortion exceptions in the fetal homicide laws, if they really had performed abortions that were otherwise fully legal, I don’t see how they could be charged.
Now, it’s possible that the charges are poorly crafted (by “poorly crafted” I merely mean from the perspective of legal jots and tittles, not from the perspective of justice) and will simply be thrown out. I hope there is a good way for us to follow the case and see how exactly it is done and how it works or doesn’t work.
If successful, it could provide a whole new avenue for actually protecting the unborn.
[Reply]
December 31st, 2011 | 12:25 pm
I find the viability standard for abortion’s legality somewhat perplexing: isn’t it ironic that at the very “moment” that the fetus/baby* could survive outside the womb on its own, removing it from the womb is prohibited?
I’ve never heard any pro-choice person advocate for “abortion allowed through viability, then early delivery for any reason after viability”. It’s always that, after viability, the fetus/baby* has to be carried to term like a normal, “wanted” child (barring any medical issues requiring early delivery/c-section). Where are the pro-choicers for early delivery?
Furthermore, what about delivery earlier than current viability standards? Why destroy what’s in the womb, when we could have an opportunity to test the limits of our current medical technology to sustain the smallest human lives? (I am not advocating this; just observing and wondering why this is no one’s opinion.) And if risking the fetus/baby’s life in such a way (by trying to sustain it outside the womb pre-viability) seems so wrong/immoral, then doesn’t that say the same thing about abortion on the whole?
[*Why is it that either term (fetus/baby) always sounds politicized one way or the other?]
[Reply]
January 1st, 2012 | 6:29 am
I just read on a website the comments of a man who, with his wife, killed their 34 week old unborn daughter in an abortion because she had down syndrome and a heart defect. He was grieving the loss, etc, but frankly, if it were up to me I’d have him, his wife, and the doctor who performed that abortion arrested. Doctors clearly use the broad “health” exception in Doe v. Bolton to justify outrageously late term abortions, and were there’s a fetal anomaly, it’s considered to be completely justified. Sickening.
[Reply]
Historywriter Reply:
January 2nd, 2012 at 11:38 pm
@Safepres,
Fortunately for all of us, it’s not up to you.
HW
[Reply]
Chris Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 2:57 pm
@Historywriter, HW, I don’t mean to sensationalize this, but essentially you are implying that we should murder the weak for our own benefit. 34 weeks is way past viability, was justification do you, they or society have in morally approving of culling children because they have medical conditions?
[Reply]
holyterror Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 4:00 pm
@Historywriter, Actually, I find your way of thinking about it way more restrictive, in actual practice, than the one who laments and even desires to legislate against it.
Think about it: If the reason that it is ok to abort a viable human being due to its having Down Syndrome is that it is always ok, no matter what the reason, to abort a child, then you inevitably have said that it is ok for us to eliminate people due to illness or disability, based on our own criteria for fitness. This is narrow-minded and oppressive reasoning at its worst.
If you argue that people have the right to abort a viable, disabled child because they shouldn’t have to be forced into caring for the dependent against their will then you have also made an argument that each person is expendable in direct proportion to their dependence on others– again, not based on any subjective choice of the disabled or dependent person (as you might argue in the case of suicide) but on the basis of what those around them would prefer. Again, you have made the case for a value system that is based on the measurements of some certifying authority whose power to determine whether others might live or die is based on – nothing except their own convenience and preferences.
This is far more frightening to me than the fear I have of the frothy-mouthed religious conservatives that I just *know* would swoon with delight if abortions past viability were made illegal. (It’s those wild-eyed stereotypes that has you worried, isn’t it, when you say, “Fortunately for all of us…”? OR are you one of those people who wants to retain the right, no matter what , to not be inconvenienced by the sick and dependent?
[Reply]
January 3rd, 2012 | 1:42 am
It is a sad day when having DS or a heart defect will cause someone to believe it acceptable to take away your life.
[Reply]
January 5th, 2012 | 8:44 pm
“When pregnancy terminations must be done for therapeutic reasons after viability, the baby should be delivered, not killed.”
Aww, but Wesley, intentional terminations done after viability aren’t “therapeutic” unless the child is dead. That’s the “therapy” being prescribed.
GRRRR. :3(
[Reply]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact