.jpg?auto=format%2Ccompress&fmt=webp&width=720)
The conviction of Indian immigrant Purvi Patel, 33, to 20 years in prison for feticide has sparked a massive debate, inviting reactions from all quarters.
The judge who convicted Patel had claimed that the latter had abused her position of trust when she gave birth prematurely, threw the baby in the trash and lied to hospital personnel about giving birth, according to AP.
Surprisingly, Patel Faced Two Conflicting Charges
What is particularly intriguing about the case is that the accused appears to have been convicted of two conflicting charges––as The Quint reported earlier.
Even if Patel had deliberately aborted a pregnancy illegally, this case is outrageous. That’s because she was convicted both of killing a baby and killing a fetus.
– Slate Magazine
The problem with this verdict, as Ed Pilkington of The Guardian explains, is that it should be either one or the other.
The two charges that Patel now faces – the initial count of neglect of a dependent, and the new charge of feticide – appear to be legally contradictory. Under Indiana law, a woman can only be convicted of neglecting a dependent if it can be proved that she gave birth to a live baby. By contrast, feticide requires the baby to have been born dead.
–The Guardian
A Person Could Be Guilty of Both
Indiana-based prosecutor Ken Cotter attempted to shed some light on the apparent contradiction between the charges, when he argued to Slate magazine that, “a person can be guilty of feticide under Indiana law for deliberately trying to end a pregnancy, even if the fetus survives.”
Meanwhile, the judge in Patel’s case, Elizabeth C. Hurley rejected the defense’s argument that Patel was being charged with contradictory charges.
The judge in Patel’s case, Elizabeth Hurley (Hon. Elizabeth C. Hurley) rejected defense arguments that Patel could not be charged with both neglecting a live baby and aborting her own fetus. The jury convicted Patel on both counts.
–Public Radio International
The Debate, However, is Not New
According to National Conference of State Legislatures, the debate over fetal rights is not new to the legislative arena. Every year pro-life and pro-choice advocates aim to win over the other side in this contentious issue. Currently, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws. Indiana is one of them.
Those supporting feticide laws, often pro-life advocates, say that both the lives of the pregnant woman and the fetus should be explicitly protected. Under fetal homicide laws, an unborn baby is a protected person.
–National Conference of State Legislatures
Judgment Attacked by Feminists
Needless to say, feminists are vehemently opposing the judgment. The headline for Jessica Valenti’s article for The Guardian reads, “It isn’t justice for Purvi Patel to serve 20 years in prison for an abortion.”
When women are desperate to end their pregnancies, they will. The answer to this shouldn’t be punitive, but supportive: women need better access to education, affordable contraception and abortion without harassment or delay.
– Jessica Valenti, Daily Columnist for The Guardian.
---------------------------
Related Link:
Why India is Better than Indiana When it Comes To a Woman’s Choice
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)