WTF?!

Jun 02, 2008 22:10

Someone explain to me why this woman is being brought up on charges.

Full text of article )

news, masslive, abortion

Leave a comment

Comments 15

gemini6ice June 3 2008, 03:06:46 UTC
Maybe she was far enough along the pregnancy that it is considered a baby and no longer a "fetus"?

BOO GREY AREA :(

Reply

zandperl June 3 2008, 03:50:12 UTC
Is there such a definition in MA? I wasn't aware of one, but I could certainly be mistaken.

Reply

gemini6ice June 3 2008, 03:51:49 UTC
I honestly do not know.

Reply

(The comment has been removed)


meig June 3 2008, 04:32:49 UTC
Because it's Salem and they're hanking for a new witch hunt?

Seriously, that's bizarre and messed up.

Reply


caprising June 3 2008, 05:11:42 UTC
If the fetus took some pills to try to abort the parent, could you bring the fetus up on charges?
:)

Reply


hrafn June 3 2008, 10:43:31 UTC
I don't think I knew that misoprostol was an anti-ulcer drug; I've only heard of it related to either abortion or IUD insertion (cause used the right way it can relax your cervix and make putting an IUD in a lot easier).

It's really troubling that she was brought up on -any- charges, and I wish the "reporter" had mentioned what the charges really were: practicing medicine without a license (assuming she got/used the drug in the "wrong" way)? Inducing abortion during the semi-forbidden third trimester?

Reply

zandperl June 3 2008, 13:45:46 UTC
To me the implication is that the charges are "causing a miscarriage" - how that's different from "having an abortion" is what's bothering me.

Reply


OMFG hrafn June 3 2008, 10:50:35 UTC
Well, the damn Glob is useless, per usual, but I found this via Google. Better article, which states:

"Abreu was charged under an 1845 law against procuring a miscarriage, which Regan and Cahill argued could not be enforced because of the Roe v. Wade decision."

And there's more in there about misinformation given during the original grand jury. I still really wonder just who the hell decided she needed to be charged, cause there must be more going on than even this story is presenting.

Reply

Re: OMFG parrot_lady June 3 2008, 12:43:14 UTC
OMFG is right. Thats beyond stupid.

Misoprostol is an anti ulcer drug (according to the 2006 lippincott's nursing drug hand book) it is also listed as an abortifacient drug- they advise women to be notified orally and in writting as well as having a NEGATIVE pregnancy serum test 2 weeks prior to starting on it- starting therapy on the 2-3rd day of the next menstrual cycle.

I wonder what in the hell the doctor was thinking prescribing this to her.

... WTF. Put the freaking doctor on trial as well.

Reply

Re: OMFG zandperl June 3 2008, 13:47:29 UTC
No, I'm under the impression the woman purposefully took the drug to induce an abortion. It's possible she lied to the doctor, or obtained the drug illegally, in which case charges could be appropriate.

Reply

Re: OMFG parrot_lady June 3 2008, 13:57:14 UTC
Ahhh. That actually does make sense.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up