I know we all debate the abortion issue..

[Josephine96]

but this in my opinion is questionable.. A woman got charged with murder for refusing to have a C section

Woman Who Refused C-Section Charged With Murder

POSTED: 3:15 am EST March 12, 2004
UPDATED: 3:22 am EST March 12, 2004

SALT LAKE CITY -- A woman was charged with murder Thursday for allegedly ignoring a doctor's warnings to undergo a Caesarean section to save the life of one of her unborn twins, who was later delivered stillborn.

Melissa Ann Rowland, 28, was charged in Salt Lake County with one first-degree felony count of criminal homicide.

Rowland exhibited "depraved indifference to human life," which eventually "caused the death of Baby Boy Rowland," according to charging documents in the case. One nurse told police that Rowland said a C-section would "ruin her life" and she would rather "lose one of the babies than be cut like that."

A spokesman for the district attorney, Kent Morgan, said Rowland is married and has other children, but he did not know how many. The court documents don't list an address for Rowland, and she isn't listed in telephone books covering the Salt Lake City metro area.

"We are unable to find any reason other than the cosmetic motivations by the mother" for her decision, Morgan said.

The documents allege that Rowland was warned numerous times between last Christmas and Jan. 9 that if she did not get immediate medical treatment, her twins would likely die. On Jan. 13, Rowland delivered the babies, one of whom was stillborn.

The doctor who performed an autopsy found that the baby died two days before delivery and would have survived if Rowland had had a C-section when urged to do so.

According to the documents, Rowland sought medical advice in December because she hadn't felt her babies move. A nurse at LDS Hospital in Salt Lake, Regina Davis, told West Valley police that during a hospital visit, she instructed Rowland to go immediately to either of two hospitals where she could get the care she needed, but Rowland allegedly said she would rather have both of her babies die before she went to either of the suggested hospitals.

On Jan. 2, a doctor at LDS Hospital saw Rowland and recommended she immediately undergo a C-section based on the results of an ultrasound and the babies' slowing heart rates. Rowland left the hospital after signing a document stating that she understood that leaving the hospital might result in death or brain injury to one or both of her babies, the doctor told police.

The same day, a nurse at Salt Lake Regional Hospital saw Rowland, who allegedly told her she had left LDS Hospital because the doctor wanted to cut her "from breast bone to pubic bone," a procedure that would "ruin her life." The nurse also told investigators that Rowland allegedly said she would rather "lose one of her babies than be cut like that."

An LDS Hospital spokesman referred questions to a doctor familiar with the case, Jeff Botkin. A call to him was not immediately returned.

A week later, Rowland allegedly came to Pioneer Valley Hospital to verify whether her babies were alive. A nurse there told police that Rowland ignored her advice to remain in the hospital after she could not detect a heartbeat from one of the twins.

Some legal experts say the case represents a slippery slope that could affect abortion rights.

"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," said Marguerite Driessen, a law professor at Brigham Young University.

In January, the Utah Supreme Court ruled that unborn children at all stages of development are covered under the state's criminal homicide statute. That statute, however, exempts the death of an unborn child caused by an abortion.

The statute has been used to prosecute mothers who kill or seriously harm their babies through drug use, but never because a mother failed to follow her doctor's advice, Driessen said.

The Rowland case is a "can of worms" that could open the door to prosecution of mothers who smoke, or don't follow their obstetrician's diet, she said.

"This is going to be a messy soup," said Driessen, who considers herself anti-abortion. "We, the state of Utah, are going to come under fire for abortion-rights advocates because they'll see the same slippery slope that I do."

If convicted, Rowland could be sentenced to between five years and life in prison.

Rowland, held Thursday on $250,000 bail at the Salt Lake County jail, will appear in court Friday or Monday, Morgan said.

On Thursday, Rowland did not yet have an attorney but would have one appointed for her by Friday, he said.


Copyright 2004 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

[southerngale]

It doesn't seem questionable to me. Cold hearted woman - letting her baby die so she doesn't have a scar!

[Josephine96]

Ok Kelly.. You do have a point there.. I guess I didn't completely read the article. But still.. I don't see why you'd have to charge a woman with murder if she refused a C section.

[blizzard]

The Rowland case is a "can of worms" that could open the door to prosecution of mothers who smoke, or don't follow their obstetrician's diet, she said.

This is the part that worries me, opening that can of worms. While I agree her decision was self serving and infuriates me to no end. What can of worms will this open up for other mother's who lose a child through no fault of their own. Will the prosecutors think of a reason, wrong diet, the mother slept wrong, she was careless? With what would it end?
The possibilities would be endless....

[southerngale]

Because the baby died and she was told the baby would die if she didn't have a c-section. It's negligance. To me, it's no different than not feeding your baby and letting him starve to death. You didn't actually murder him with a weapon or smothering or something like that, but you did by negligence. Same thing to me. She could have avoided the baby's death but CHOSE not to. It sounds like she was at or almost to term too.

[southerngale]

There will always be cans of worms that can be opened with anything like this, but in this case, this was her fault and a very selfish reason at that. Could you let her go unpunished in good conscience though? I couldn't.

[GalvestonDuck]

The Rowland case is a "can of worms" that could open the door to prosecution of mothers who smoke, or don't follow their obstetrician's diet, she said.

This is the part that worries me, opening that can of worms. While I agree her decision was self serving and infuriates me to no end. What can of worms will this open up for other mother's who lose a child through no fault of their own. Will the prosecutors think of a reason, wrong diet, the mother slept wrong, she was careless? With what would it end?
The possibilities would be endless....

Through no fault of their own is one thing. Obviously, they should not be blamed.

But when the woman allegedly told the nurse that she didn't want a scar, a C-section would ruin her life, and she would rather "lose one of the babies than be cut like that," I'd call that murder.

[JCT777]

Kelly - I agree with you completely on all of your points. It is a shame there are people more interested in whether or not they have a scar than their own child's life.

[blizzard]

There will always be cans of worms that can be opened with anything like this, but in this case, this was her fault and a very selfish reason at that. Could you let her go unpunished in good conscience though? I couldn't.

No, I couldn't.
I agree, it was shear negligence, vanity, and selfishness that killed her child.

[GalvestonDuck]

On the other hand, what if a pregnant Jehovah's Witness had to refuse a blood donation because of religious beliefs and the baby died as a result of her refusal?

[blizzard]

Ohhhhh, now my head hurts. See, a can of worms...

I am interested to see the final outcome of this

[Anonymous]

The murder charges being filed against this woman are ludicrous... I can barely find words for the stupidity here. Anyone with half a brain would agree that abortion is more "immoral" than not having a C-section... in both instances the fetus is not born, but in the case of abortion the sole reason to do it is to exterminate, not to avoid other complications. Yet abortion is 100% legal, while this is going to get a woman charged with the worst crime in our justice system.

The woman's body is hers alone, and she has every right to make decisions on what procedures it undergoes. The precedent being set here is extremely dangerous. There are very likely individuals who could be put in the same situation and have legitimate concerns over the surgery and not want it performed. Remember, the fact that it was merely cosmetics that influenced her decision may be "immoral," but it has NO legal bearing whatsoever. If you want to see this woman put behind bars, you are essentially advocating going down a road that leads to government picking and choosing what does and doesn't happen to your body.

Again, it's not that I'm saying there is nothing wrong with this woman's actions -- I adamantly disagree with her decision and the basis on which it was made -- but legally, I don't think there's much that can or should be done about it.

In conclusion, this is absolutely outrageous, and only the most extreme conservative could possibly agree that this woman deserves to be tried for MURDER.

[JCT777]

Brett - My thinking is that this is negligence, not first degree murder. This does not equate to someone picking up a gun and shooting their neighbor because they were being too loud. However, I still think something should be done about it.

[southerngale]

The murder charges being filed against this woman are ludicrous... I can barely find words for the stupidity here. Anyone with half a brain would say that abortion, which is perfectly legal, is more "immoral" than not having a C-section... in both instances the fetus is not born, but in the case of abortion the sole reason to do it is to exterminate, not to avoid other complications.

The woman's body is hers alone, and she has every right to make decisions on what procedures it undergoes. The precedent being set here is extremely dangerous. There are very likely individuals who could be put in the same situation and have legitimate concerns over the surgery and not want it performed. Remember, the fact that it was merely cosmetics that influenced her decision may be "immoral," but it has NO legal bearing whatsoever. If you want to see this woman put behind bars, you are essentially advocating going down a road that leads to government picking and choosing what does and doesn't happen to your body.

In conclusion, this is absolutely outrageous, and only the most extreme conservative could possibly agree that this woman deserves to be tried for MURDER.

Why don't you call the fetus what it is, a baby! The baby could have lived outside of the mother so you don't even have that argument that people try and use for abortion. She can do whatever she wants to her body, but she had no right not letting that baby live. If she didn't want the baby, then fine, give him to a family waiting to adopt. But no, then she'd have the inconvenience of a scar on her lower tummy. Give me a break...she should be punished, plain and simple.

And why do you have to bring politics into this by saying "only an extreme conservative"? There are liberals who believe letting a baby die through negligence is murder.

[southerngale]

Here's a pic of this louse of a woman.

[Lindaloo]

Well how could a scar ruin her life? gee.

[GalvestonDuck]

ROFL, Linda!!!!

[weatherluvr]

Here's a pic of this louse of a woman.

She bears a striking similarity to Patrick from SpongeBob Squarepants.

[GalvestonDuck]

Here's a pic of this louse of a woman.

She bears a striking similarity to Patrick from SpongeBob Squarepants.

How oddly right you are.

[Anonymous]

The murder charges being filed against this woman are ludicrous... I can barely find words for the stupidity here. Anyone with half a brain would say that abortion, which is perfectly legal, is more "immoral" than not having a C-section... in both instances the fetus is not born, but in the case of abortion the sole reason to do it is to exterminate, not to avoid other complications.

The woman's body is hers alone, and she has every right to make decisions on what procedures it undergoes. The precedent being set here is extremely dangerous. There are very likely individuals who could be put in the same situation and have legitimate concerns over the surgery and not want it performed. Remember, the fact that it was merely cosmetics that influenced her decision may be "immoral," but it has NO legal bearing whatsoever. If you want to see this woman put behind bars, you are essentially advocating going down a road that leads to government picking and choosing what does and doesn't happen to your body.

In conclusion, this is absolutely outrageous, and only the most extreme conservative could possibly agree that this woman deserves to be tried for MURDER.

Why don't you call the fetus what it is, a baby! The baby could have lived outside of the mother so you don't even have that argument that people try and use for abortion. She can do whatever she wants to her body, but she had no right not letting that baby live. If she didn't want the baby, then fine, give him to a family waiting to adopt. But no, then she'd have the inconvenience of a scar on her lower tummy. Give me a break...she should be punished, plain and simple.

And why do you have to bring politics into this by saying "only an extreme conservative"? There are liberals who believe letting a baby die through negligence is murder.

All you are doing is trying to convince us of the immorality of the act, which has no bearing on the legal consequences. My post was only refuting the idea that she should be held legally responsible, not defending the act as morally acceptable. The nation's laws should not be (and largely are not) based on traditional values, and more importantly, they MUST be concrete and clear-cut. I'm sure you would agree that someone who had serious medical concerns over the C-section should NOT be punished for the same "negligence," but when it comes to legal matters, you can't be vague and say, "well, if there's a really GOOD reason not to do it then fine, but if it's a stupid thing like cosmetics they're worried about then the same action is murder!" That doesn't work, and our nation would be in chaos as we speak if the laws were like that.

So let me restate this... I agree that worrying about the appearance of one's body is a very poor reason to forefit the potential life of an unborn child. But at the same time, this is one of those instances where the legal system really shouldn't be able to touch her because of the circumstances... to ensure the baby's birth would have required her to undergo a procedure that can be risky and unpleasant, and this is true regardless of whether or not those were HER reasons for refusing the procedure.

When it comes down to it you are simply so outraged at her actions... because they go against everything you believe and practice... that you are insisting she be punished. You seem to forget, though, that your moral standards cannot and should not be legally forced upon the rest of the country.