Prosecution for murder of the unborn

[Englishlush]

A friend just brought this to my attention on another site. if it's already been discussed here please ignore! Once again it is a prosecution against someone who is obviously mentally ill, but the implications of the prosecution are more wide-ranging.

Quote:
SALT LAKE CITY, Utah (AP) -- A pregnant woman who allegedly ignored medical warnings to have a Caesarean section to save her twins was charged Thursday with murder after one of the babies was stillborn.

Prosecutors said Melissa Ann Rowland, 28, didn't want the scars that accompany the surgery.

An autopsy found the baby died two days before its January 13 delivery and that it would have survived if Rowland had had a C-section when her doctors urged her to, between Christmas and January 9. The other baby is alive, but authorities had no further information.

The doctors had warned that without a C-section, the twins would probably die, authorities said. A nurse told police Rowland said a Caesarean would "ruin her life" and she would rather "lose one of the babies than be cut like that."

"We are unable to find any reason other than the cosmetic motivations" for the mother's decision, said Kent Morgan, spokesman for the district attorney.

Court documents give no address for Rowland, and she isn't listed in area telephone books. An attorney was to be appointed for her Friday, Morgan said.

The charges carry five years to life in prison. Rowland was jailed on $250,000 bail.

According to the documents, Rowland went to LDS Hospital in Salt Lake City in December to seek advice after she hadn't felt her babies move. A nurse, Regina Davis, told police she instructed Rowland to go immediately to one of two other hospitals, but that Rowland said she would rather have both babies die before going to either place.

On January 2, a doctor at LDS Hospital examined Rowland and recommended an immediate C-section based on an ultrasound and the babies' slowing heart rates. Rowland left, the doctor told police.

The same day, Rowland allegedly saw a nurse at another hospital, saying she had left LDS Hospital because the doctor wanted to cut her "from breast bone to pubic bone."

A week later, Rowland allegedly went to a third hospital to verify whether her babies were alive. A nurse there told police she could not detect a heartbeat from one twin and advised Rowland to remain in the hospital, but Rowland allegedly ignored the advice.

In January, the state Supreme Court ruled that unborn children at all stages of development are covered under the state's criminal homicide statute. The law exempts the death of a fetus during an abortion.

The law has been used to prosecute women who kill or seriously harm their babies through drug use; it has never been used because a woman failed to follow her doctor's advice, said Marguerite Driessen, a law professor at Brigham Young University.

"It's very troubling to have somebody come in and say we're going to charge this mother for murder because we don't like the choices she made," Driessen said.

Unquote.

Now if this is really the case I agree the woman made some stupid decisions, but where the hell is the line going to be
drawn? How can we allow abortion and yet prosecute for endangering or killing the unborn?

If I don't know I'm pregnant and go and play rugby and have a miscarriage is someone going to prosecute me on the grounds that i could have caused the miscarriage? At the end of the day noone should be able to force surgery upon another if they oppose it. Think of all the religious groups that do not allow surgery, and for those that would say save the child when the mother's life is at risk - shouldn't they be charged with murder of the adult?

Finally, doctors are not infalliable, they are not God! I take every piece of doctor's advice with the knowledge that I will be the one who will live with the consequences of the decision, not them. (Plus having doctors & nurses as friends has given me a healthy sense of skepticism!).

I'm not defending this woman, she's obviously a nutter! However, what about the precedent it sets for the future?

[PantyFanatic]

Does someone become a citizen of a country at conception or at birth when a government issues a birth certificate? If government has a say before birth, there are going to be a lot of people subject to duel regulations.:confused:

[Irish]

I don't want to get in the middle of an abortion arguement,but it
was afterwards disclosed, that the aforementioned woman,had
already had 2(two)children,by C-section,anyway.That throws not wanting a scar,out the proverbial window. Irish
P.S.I know that everyone is different,but as the parent of 2(two)
daughters,I can't imagine not putting,your kids,before vanity!

[Englishlush]

Yeah I'm not disputing the fact that this woman was a nutter, just the precedents that it sets. You can already be prosecuted in the US for drinking or taking drugs during pregnancy, and I understand there is a potential law going through the process at the moment to give the unborn the same legal status as anyone else. I'm just becoming concerned about where it stops.......

My view is its likely to end up in another great debate on whether to criminalise abortion, I guess I should butt out as it won't affect me butI'm concerned for the knock-on effects worldwide.

[PantyFanatic]

.....I'm just becoming concerned about where it stops.....

It will NEVER be allowed to stop as long as there is one dime to be made within the legal profession.:(

[Irish]

I agree PF.As I have already told you,from my experience,it's not
what you did,but how much money you can spend & who you know! Irish
P.S.For me,3yrs.1day in State Prison,cost me $500,for probation
(early release)and then another $300,for a complete record
annulment!That's from Superior Court for Aggravated Assult! (Felony)I don't know who got the money.I don't care!I didn't do
the time!

[jseal]

Englishlush,

I think this issue may be better described in terms of philosophy rather than avarice.

In the U.S. the issue of whether an individual may own another was settled de facto in 1865, and de jury with the passage of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. A woman does not own her babies. Her relationship to them is as a steward, to whose decisions deference is naturally given, except in exceptional circumstances.

Just as the State may exercise the right of eminent domain to take private property, following compensation, for public use, so too it may use its powers of coercion to prevent its citizens from endangering the life of others, or punish them after the fact for doing so. Irresponsible behavior constitutes grounds for action. Drug abuse is an obvious candidate. Engaging in violent sports while knowingly pregnant (and yes, Rugby would qualify) would also be highly suspect. The life endangered in this instance was that of the unborn babies. The accused sought and received expert advice on three occasions. She was aware of what might come to pass as a result of her decision. She willfully ignored the advice she received.

This young woman behaved in a fashion that was grossly irresponsible and morally reprehensible. Of that there can be no question. The correct question is whether or not the State has the authority to bring criminal charges against her for behaving so. The Assistant State’s attorneys receive an annual salary; they are not paid by the conviction.

Many people shy away from philosophical questions, grasping at what seems to offer an easy answer: the people who can make money from an event are involved only because they are out to “make big bucks”. Attorneys who defend cases like this one are NOT doing it for the money. If you want to make money by practicing law in the U.S., you prosecute and defend business lawsuits. Hell, the unlucky attorney who gets stuck with this turkey may actually be doing it Pro Bono.

No, the real questions here are the hard ones; the questions raised at the bottom of your first post by both the law professor and you, and in your second post. Where does the purview of the individual stop and that of the state start? Does – in principle – the foetus have all the rights of a citizen? If not, does the foetus have enough rights of a citizen to justify constraining (or in this instance punishing) the behavior of a full citizen – the mother. If so, well money be damned; her willful behavior killed someone! If the mother’s relationship with the State trumps that of the unborn, then money be damned; the state should stay out of her life! These are question which need deliberation, not sound bites.

A liberal society invests more trust in the individual than does an authoritarian one. The U.S. has traditionally been listed among the more liberal societies, due in large part to the authority of Federal government being constrained by that of the member States. I, for one, hope it can remain a liberal society, but the history of the last 60 years or so indicates otherwise. The responsibilities of the government, both State and Federal, have expanded many times over in that period, and the inevitable assertion of authority over those responsibilities has made government more intrusive in the lives of its citizens than in the past.

[fzzy]

OK, let me just add that State law and Federal law can differ widely. Utah is a VERY conservative state, in more ways then just legal, so worrying about what the Utah State Supreme court allows or disallows is not that likely to impact choices of most other states or the Federal laws. So I think you can probably rest easy about the decision of this case affecting the overall outcome of such cases in the US or outside the US.

We have a justice system in the US that allows for "precedents" to be used to argue for and/or against a particular outcome which is why people get concerned about a precedent being set, however each case is still tried on its own merit. And a case being tried still happens or not on the say so of those in charge of upholding and the laws and bringing to justice those who break the laws if they have sufficient evidence to do so. Some may be bribe-able, but I prefer to believe that most do the job they do because they believe they can make a difference.

In this case it sounds like this woman (months beyond the stage where she could legally or safely have an abortion) made choices that brought about the death of one of her babies .... and if she was at the point where they were advising an immediate c-section, most states would legally consider this a "baby" and not a "fetus". Just a few things I think should be considered when discussing this case. :)

[Mercury_Maniac]

sounds like a bunch of crap to me,


what about second-hand smoke?

when a person lights up a cigarette they know that people around them are inhaling the smoke as well and that second-hand smoke kills just the same,

so are we gonna start jailing these friggin' smokers and cigarette companies anytime soon?

[imaginewithme]

People just don't seem to realize what they have and how bad I wish I could have their opportunities.

[TinTennessee]

Well I have lost a child, my first, many years ago and it took me years to deal with his death. I have two heathly sons now, ages 15 and 12 and for that I thank God. I have very strong feelings where the death of a child is concerned, and yes I do consider a "fetus" a child!

[PantyFanatic]

I think this issue may be better described in terms of philosophy rather than avarice.






A philosophical discussion is much preferred to confronting the reality.

[jseal]

PantyFanatic,

There is a real difference between "better" and "preferred".

[PantyFanatic]

I also agree with that ------^. ;)

[jseal]

Mercury_Maniac,

Valid point. Taking it a step further, women who smoke during pregnancy usually deliver smaller babies, and there are more medical issues with these infants than with those borne to women who don’t smoke. Should they be prevented from doing so? If so, when?

As one with libertarian tendencies, I’d say that falls outside the scope of the traditional liberal government. But then what constitutes sufficient danger to the foetus to justify intervention?

In the thread “Insane, or did she know what she was doing?”, Lilith raises the question of why the spouses and or families of these women are held blameless? The particulars in that thread dealt with a woman who acted out a killing, but how much difference is there between that and the accused in this case, who willfully ignored medical advice that her inaction was endangering her twins? Also in that thread, maddy alludes to the responsibility of being a parent, and whether those who are not up to the task should necessarily be entitled to breed.

Also in that thread, Lilith points out that a teacher can be found negligent for failing to report abuse. Would this woman’s behavior constitute abuse? Should the State force the hands of the medical practitioners this way?

Tough questions. Real issues.

[thedog]

This is somewhat OT from the discussion at hand ... but not that far.

In many respects, the scope and the increasing number of suits and litigation involving child abuse have become more diverse and more encompassing. Almost anything, it seems, that is even remotely harmful to a child, if construed from a particular vantage point, can be considered abuse.

There was a report on NPR this AM that discussed the deleterious effects TV has on a young child, suggesting that perhaps, in the matter of violent programs or those with an excessive(?) amount of hyper activity, that those programs may somehow contribute to AHDD. If so, can the attending adult / parent that allowed the viewing be held accountable for child abuse? Or child endangerment?

Or, when that child reaches the age of cognizance, can he sue his parents?

Another example ... During the period beginning 1980 through 2000, the number of children considered obese has risen from 6.5% to 15.3%. And obesity is directly linked to diabetes, high blood pressure, and heart disease.

Following the above line of reasoning, can the parents or guardians who allow children to ingest such a diet in excess (define excess) be held accountable for child abuse. And by whom?

People have sued the fast food industry for exactly that. In the case of an adult suing the fast food industry the argument can be made that no one sat that person down in front of a Big Mac, put a gun to his head, and forced them to eat it. Not so with a child -- he generally eats what is put in front of him with little or no recourse in the matter. If that food happens to be harmful when consumed to excess, can the parents be held accountable?

Or again, when that child reaches the age of cognizance, can he sue his parents for his obesity and subsequent complications?

Haven't seen this one (or anything like it) in the news, but I'm sure when some enterprising barrister finally conceives of the idea, we will (see it).

[Gilly]

I'm not sure I have given this much thought. Whenit first happened, a lot of the details were more sketchy, and I was in the woman's cornor. However, that was when the only quotes released were that one doctor told her it "might" be neccesary, and that it "might" not. I had heard the remark about not wanting a scar.

No, hearing more, I think what the woman decided was grossly negligent, and if people can be prosecuted for killing the unborn child in another person's body (IE: the Lacy Peterson case), then I suppose gross negligence can be applied to the mother, as well.

Drug abusers who get their kids high in the womb are prosecuted.

I really haven't given this one much thought, but either way, I can't really say I'd ever think of this woman in a good light, either.

What she did is defiantly against my own morals. That being said, I'm also very pro-choice about abortion, though it's not something I would ever do to myself. But just because I would never do it, doesn't mean others shouldn't have the right to choose, either.

Gah, this is a rather conveluted case, in all regards. I just don't like it all around. :( I can't imagine what the surviving twin is going to feel like when he/she realizes that there was a twin, and why the twin isn't with him/her.

[jseal]

Gilly,

I have found that issues of moral and ethical behavior are seldom easy to resolve. You touch on a key issue; how to balance both the woman’s right to her own body, and the state’s responsibility to protect its citizens. Both are valid, but where does one take precedence over the other? Drug abuse is an easy call, but what about the other issues raised here?

[Lilith]

In my state, mother's who bear children addicted to crack are not prosecuted. Their babies are not even always removed.

[lakritze]

From breast bone to pubic bone? I thought that was the old procedure.Don't they cut from side to side leaving a smaller scar and below the bikini line? Not like the old days when I was a caesarian birth.

[Gilly]

Originally posted by lakritze
From breast bone to pubic bone? I thought that was the old procedure.Don't they cut from side to side leaving a smaller scar and below the bikini line? Not like the old days when I was a caesarian birth.


Yeah, they do it under the belly button now days, and the insicion is usually about 7 inches long, and heals a barely visable white line, with maybe some slight puckering of the skin.

Hell, most the time, wearing a bikini is still fine.

I don't get how a scar would ruin anyone's life. Good god, did the woman not get stretch marks at all? They don't go away! I was so self conscious of mine after #1. By #3, they're an annoyance, but eh, part and parcel with the end package. I guess a huge scar disfiguring someone's face might be life changing, sure, but on the stomache? Was she a model? Heck, from the picture I've seen, she definatly wasn't a model. Ok, ok, that was shallow. But still, how does a scar you recieve giving birth ruin your life?

Your life alters drastically with children, and I have to wonder if THAT wasn't what she was more scared of. :(

[Gilly]

BIG FAT UGH! I looked up here name, and found THIS pleasing article. UGH UGH UGH!!!!



found posted with the New York Daily News
The Melissa Ann Rowland case in Utah is a fascinating window on gender politics in America. Here we have a depraved woman who has badly injured two babies and possibly murdered another one, yet the National Organization for Women is portraying her as the victim.
The 28-year-old Rowland is a horror. A few years ago, she punched her 2-year-old daughter in the face for taking a candy bar in a store. Pennsylvania social services placed the child in foster care.

Then, on Jan. 2, a doctor at a Salt Lake City hospital told Rowland she had to have a C-section if she wanted to save the life of one of the twins she was carrying. Rowland refused, reportedly telling hospital personnel she didn't want "scars."

Eleven days later, Rowland consented to the C-section, and one of the babies was born dead. An autopsy showed the baby would have lived had the C-section been performed when the doctor ordered it. The other twin was born with alcohol and cocaine in her bloodstream.

Rowland's estranged husband, the father of the babies, told a television station that the scar excuse was a ruse, that Rowland simply did not want doctors to know she was using cocaine during her pregnancy.

Prosecutors in Utah now have charged Rowland with first-degree murder, citing "depraved indifference to human life." Currently, she is in prison, being held on $300,000 bail.

Enter NOW, perhaps the most radicalized women's group in the history of this country. A few days ago, it issued a press release stating that Rowland's incarceration "is absolutely inhumane treatment." NOW President Kim Gandy opined: "Our legal system recognizes every person's bodily integrity and the right to make your own medical decisions."

You might expect NOW to take an extreme position like this, because it has quite a track record. Remember, NOW's Texas branch raised money for the defense of Andrea Yates, who subsequently was convicted of killing her five children. NOW claimed she was the victim of "postpartum depression."

But here's the interesting thing about Gandy's argument in the Rowland case; she claims every person has "bodily integrity." Okay, fine. Doesn't that description fit a viable baby in the womb? A child who can be birthed and live on its own? Apparently not, in Gandy's view.

The truth is that NOW and other misguided groups do not believe any unborn child has rights. According to those people, a woman can do whatever she wants during her pregnancy, and even afterward, as NOW's Yates defense proves, and not be held accountable.

It is beyond me how any human being can devalue life in this manner. There is no question that Rowland damaged her twins in the extreme. Yet NOW opposes the prosecution.

Fortunately, most Americans reject this kind of barbarity and want protections for babies. In November, Congress overwhelmingly passed a ban on partial birth abortion, and it is the law of the land. That hasn't stopped the constitutional challenges, but it does give comfort to those who believe America has lost all moral courage.

Rowland is a danger to defenseless children. NOW really doesn't care much about that. To them, Rowland is the person whose rights are being violated. Because unborn babies really aren't people at all.

Originally published on March 22, 2004

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/176092p-153153c.html


She just pisses me off now. :(

[jseal]

Gilly,

There’s the rub. Is it possible – even in principle – to reconcile such different ethical positions? As Lilith reports, some jurisdictions do not consider addicting unborn babies to cocaine to be criminal behavior. It would seem that some do not even consider it worth intervening in such lifestyles. You, and many people like you, recoil from such behavior. What is considered criminal behavior in Utah is, it would seem, condoned in Florida.

The National Organization of Women does have an argument which bears acknowledging: there exists behavior which, while you may not approve of it, you accept it. A woman has more rights over her body than does the state. While easy to state, this leads to an unavoidable tension when the woman’s decisions are not seen to be in the best interests of the foetus. Does the mother eat right and get enough sleep? Does she drink alcohol or smoke? Does she take advantage of all the help (Well Baby checkups, parenting classes, etc.) that many jurisdictions offer – sometimes for free? If not, should she?

The article you quoted seems to have a distinct slant, what with references to “most radicalized women's group” and “NOW and other misguided groups”, so I’d discount some of the assertions made there. Nevertheless, there are some interesting points made, such as the notion of "bodily integrity" as it might apply to a viable baby in the womb. Medical science has made great strides in the last 31 years (Roe v Wade, 1973), and in many instances, the laws have not kept pace.

[Gilly]

In all honesty, I don't think I've ever even heard of the group. What outrages me is that this woman has had children taken from her for child abuse, and was coked up and drunk when she was giving birth. Whether she did or did not heed medical advice about when to have her babies, she completly disregarded they the babies were living beings at all, when she snorted and drank her way to the delivery room.

Other articles I've found state that the woman's ex-husband (and father of the surviving twin) says that the only reason she didn't want the c-section, was because she was afraid of what might happen when they drew blood and found the toxicants in her blood stream.

Another article shows her quoted as saying she never refused one in the first place, and would never have done so on the merits of a scar alone. She said she'd had a previous c-section, and already has the scar.

Now, there's no doctors stating whether or not she did have one, and nothing more than her word to go on. Personally, people all over America, regardless of state, have thier children taken away for parental neglect, abuse, and drug use.

I admit, I don't know all the facts, but my thoughts are this: If she had neglected that child alive and caused its death from physical neglect rather than medical neglect, she'd be tried for it.

If she gave her 2 year old coke and alcohol, she'd be tried for it.

She did all this in utero, sure, but if any person in America can have thier kids taken away after they are born for the same practices, why can't something be done to stop a potentially harmful situation before they are born?

She has the history. She was put up for adoption herself at birth, because the mother was mentally retarded, and couldn't raise a child.

By 12, she was in a mental institute.

A few years ago, 1 child is taken away after she punched the child in the face.

Now, she's got 1 remaining child that originally came in a set of 2. The remaining child was addicted to alcohol and cocaine at birth. Now, my guess (and yes, just a guess, I've found nothing to support this one way or another) is that the reason the dead child died, and had a low heart rate for so long, is likely in conjunction with her drug and alcohol abuse.

I do agree that a woman's body is her own. She should have the right to decide what to do with her body.

But that baby shouldn't have had to suffer because she wanted to get high in the first place.

Personally, I think people with a history of drug abuse, child abuse, mental abuse, and anything else that is potentionally harmful to a child, should be made sterile and their children given to the millions of people out there who want a child, and can't have a child.

Gah. I'm sorry, I'm ranting and raving, and being all opinionated. I know not everyone views things the same, and the last thing I'd expect is for that to happen. So, yeah, I got a bit preachy, but it's just my opinion, take it or leave it. ;)

[having_fun]

Time for me to be blunt - String her up. This woman did nothing short of premeditated murder. For some reason to many people here in the U.S. don’t want to believe that an unborn child is a living person. This woman should face first-degree murder charges, because she made a conscious choice to kill this child.

Re: Mercury_Maniac: I personally read the blue paper submitted to the Surgeon Generals Office many years ago, regarding the effects of second hand smoke. In the report they detailed how they determined that second had smoke was a threat. They placed two small mice in a 20gal fish tank, filled the tank with the smoke from 200 cigarettes (one carton). When the mice died, they autopsied them and measured the amount of carcinogens in their lung tissue. In a follow up, another team submitted findings that concluded that more carcinogens were inhaled on a typical New York street, from internal combustible engines, than can be attributed to second hand smoke in a smoke filled bar, but the specifics of these reports were never widely published, because they would have been detrimental to the C. Everett Coups agenda.

Regarding all of those government statistics: A physician friend of mine advised me that in California he was required to associate any and all respiratory ailments as smoking related if the patient was a smoker, or was subject to second hand smoke, regardless whether there was any evidence of it or not. Additionally, while a State Trooper in Florida, we were advised to associate all accidents where the driver had consumed “any” alcoholic beverages in the past 24 hrs as an alcohol related incident. In both cases the point was to enhance government statistics.

I realize that smoking is a disgusting habit, and is offensive to many, me included in certain situations. But there are many far more dangerous things in our daily lives than second hand smoke.

[Gilly]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=519&e=1&u=/ap/20040407/ap_on_re_us/mother_charged_6

SALT LAKE CITY - The woman accused of murdering one of her twins by failing to undergo a timely Caesarean section pleaded guilty Wednesday to two counts of child endangerment.


Melissa Ann Rowland had been charged with murder for failing to follow doctors' advice to undergo the procedure, which they said was necessary to save the life of her twins. Under a plea bargain, the murder charge was dropped.


Prosecutors said Rowland, 28, acted with "depraved indifference" when she allegedly ignored doctors' repeated warnings to undergo a C-section to save the babies' lives.

On Wednesday, she admitted using cocaine in the weeks before she finally underwent the C-section that produced a stillborn boy. The second child, a girl who survived and has been adopted, was found with cocaine and alcohol in her system.


Rowland was sent back to jail after the hearing, during which she showed little emotion but appeared disappointed when the judge denied a request to release her from custody until sentencing on April 29.


Under the plea agreement, prosecutors will recommend that Rowland receive concurrent terms of zero to five years in prison, court probation and admittance to a drug treatment program.


Rowland has said she never intended to kill her baby and was not informed she needed immediate surgery. She denied prosecutors' allegations she was worried about a scar, saying she delivered two previous children through C-sections.


Her attorney, Michael Sikora, has said Rowland suffers from mental illness.


"She decided it was in her best interest to resolve the case as soon as possible, and I support her in the decision she made," Sikora said outside the courtroom.


Salt Lake County prosecutor Langdon Fisher said the plea agreement was reached based on Rowland's "mental health history." Prosecutors had originally dropped the child-endangerment charge and planned to use evidence that Rowland used cocaine to bolster the murder charge.


"We believe these pleas are in the interest of justice," Fisher said.


The National Organization for Women (news - web sites), Planned Parenthood (news - web sites) and the American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites) and others have said prosecutors went too far, calling the case a back-door effort to undermine abortion rights and an attack on a poor, possibly mentally ill person.


Legal experts said they do not know of any other instance in the United States in which a woman was charged with murder for refusing or delaying a C-section, though some women have been forced to undergo C-sections after their doctors obtained court orders.

[Irish]

Gilly---I'm not speaking for her but I'm a recovering alcoholic.Tho
many don't want to admit it,alcohol is a drug.The only difference is that it's legal.The 15th of this mo.,will be 11yrs10mo. for me.In
any case,you have to watch yourself,all of the time.Your body goes thru withdrawel,like any other drug addiction.I'm not saying,
that there is anything wrong with alcohol,if not abused.As far as
I'm concerned,if she didn't want an addicted child,she should have
stopped or not gotten pregnant! Irish

[huntersgirl]

I know I probably shouldn't say this, but there is a part of me that believes, even though I know that it could never work due to all the other implications that would arise from it, but....

There should be a license required for pregnancy and parenting!

I just get sick thinking of all the unfit people out there that are subjecting innocent children or soon to be children to their ignorance and lack of responsibility.

A few examples just from last nights news...

~Man arrested after having his 12 year old daughter drive home, because he was too drunk. BTW...the reason they were caught is the daughter hit a tree.

~Child left alone in a vehicle.

~Mother who attempted to kill her 2 yr old daughter and herself after catching her husband raping the 2yr old. Here I don't necessarily blame the mother, but the sick bastard of a father!
Apparantly the mother immediately called 911, daughter was treated at the hospital and upon returning home the mother attempted the murder/suicide.

That last one brings up a whole new can of worms, in that the hospital never should have just released the mother and baby w/out having some psycological evaluations. Especially when there are unknown religious/social beliefs....ie...in some countries it would be believed that the child would now be "unclean" unable to be married etc...The mother could have been of the belief that immediate death was better than an uncertain future.

I'll shut up now...no offense meant to anyone, just some ramblings on my part.