Utah Woman Charged With Murdering Fetus
 

Utah Woman Charged With Murdering Fetus
By ALEXANDRIA SAGE
Associated Press Writer

5:55 AM PST, March 12, 2004

SALT LAKE CITY — As Melissa Ann Rowland's unborn twins got closer to birth, doctors repeatedly told her they would likely die if she did not have a Caesarean section. She refused, and one later was stillborn.

Authorities charged 28-year-old Rowland with murder on Thursday, saying she exhibited "depraved indifference to human life," according to court documents. Prosecutors said Rowland didn't want to be scarred, and one nurse told police that Rowland said she would rather "lose one of the babies than be cut like that."

The case could affect abortion rights and open the door to the prosecution of mothers who smoke or don't follow their obstetrician's diet, 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," she said.

Court documents did not list an address for Rowland, and she is not listed in telephone books for the Salt Lake City area. It could not immediately be determined whether she had an attorney.

Rowland was warned numerous times between Christmas and Jan. 9 that her unborn twins would likely die if she did not get immediate medical treatment, the documents allege. When she delivered them on Jan. 13, one survived and the other was stillborn.

The woman sought medical advice in December because she hadn't felt the fetuses move, documents said.

Regina Davis, a nurse at LDS Hospital in Salt Lake, told police that during a visit there, Rowland was recommended two hospitals to go to for immediate care. Rowland allegedly said she would rather have both twins 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 fetus' slowing heart rates. Rowland left after signing a document stating that she understood that leaving might result in death or brain injury to one or both twins, 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."

LDS Hospital can't comment on the case because of medical privacy issues and the pending court case, said spokesman Robert Pexton.

The doctor who performed an autopsy found that the fetus died two days before delivery and would have survived if Rowland had undergone a C-section when urged to do so. It was not immediately clear how far along Rowland was in her pregnancy.

She was charged in Salt Lake County with one first-degree felony count of criminal homicide. Rowland was being held on $250,000 bail at the Salt Lake County jail, and was scheduled to appear in court Tuesday.

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

A spokesman for the district attorney, Kent Morgan, said Rowland is married and has other children, but he did not know how many.

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

Caesarean sections usually involve delivery through a surgical incision in the abdomen and front wall of the uterus. Dr. Christian Morgan, a family practice doctor who regularly performs C-sections at the University of Utah Health Sciences Center, said he had never seen vertical skin incisions performed at LDS Hospital for a first-time C-section.

"Even when you need to get a baby out in minutes, it can still be done in the bikini incision," Christian Morgan said.

<img src="http://cellar.org/2004/woman.jpg">

Age 28 and so full of promise.

How she looks isn't the issue. The issue is that she is the sole owner of her body and our increasingly fascist governmental officials are charging this woman with a crime for making a decision about her own body. She is clearly not guilty of murder and the person who charged her with murder should go to prison and be gang raped in the shower.

I agree.

This part on the other hand is central to the growing debate of when abortion/fetucide occurs.

If a man can be charged with a felony for causing a woman to lose a viable fetus why can't a woman be charged with causing the death of a similarly viable fetus?

Based on what criteria?

Something I'd like to recommend is a little less ad hominum assault. It doesn't bother me personally, but it does detract from the strength of your arguments

We're not talking about a three week old clump of cells here. These were fully developed BABIES that could survive outside the womb, they just needed to be let out. Does a mother have any responsibility to a baby that is about to come to term?

Now her statement to a nurse about the hospital wanting to cut her all the way up the middle makes me think she just didn't 'get' what a c-section is, or she may not be playing with a full deck - probably a bit of both.

She doesn't deserve jail, she deserves a lot of therapy.

Nope, I've had it to the teeth with people needing therapy.

If it's true that she has other children then I'm more worried about them at this point.

Because the fetus is hers. Similarly, theft is a crime, but disposal is not.

Just a thought...

If she were a Christian Scientist, and refused medical attention on religious grounds (obviously she's not, since she went to the doctor in the first place, but let's just SAY for the sake of argument since arguing is what we do best) this would not be an issue.

I say if one woman is legally allowed to refuse a C-section because of religious beliefs, then another should be allowed to refuse it because of cosmetic beliefs. Whether they BOTH should be allowed is another issue, but consistency is the key.

Because the fetus is hers.

Wrong. The fetus is HALF hers. I'VE had it to the teeth with people thinking only women have children.

But I do suspect in this case the father agreed with whatever she wanted.

Which is something I have an issue with.

I agree. People really need to get their shit in one sock.

Then what should be done to her, dump her in jail five to life? Her act did not come from a criminal mentality, it came from a fucked up mentality.



If it's true that she has other children then I'm more worried about them at this point.


Agreed.

Wrong. The fetus is HALF hers.

Well, she could have kept half, I guess.

OC, you just made my day. :D

I'm partly in agreement, in theory, but the fact is that the woman is the one facing surgery. I don't think that the father should be able to force or veto any medical procedures on the mother against her will. Once the baby is born, I support half-and-half, but until then the woman needs the final word.

Ah, you've gotta love Utah.

*cough*
Hmm, I wasn't aware that our country had a pre-determined allotment of help that we're allowed to give mentally unbalanced people. And it's measured by the height of your teeth, no less? If you want to make the argument that you're sick of people using therapy when it's not necessary, I'm right there with you. I'm no therapy-and-medication pusher... far from it... but I do know that it IS necessary for a few troubled people. To say that nobody should get therapy because you're tired of it is a bit misguided.

I think Slarti nailed it on the head... the woman is probably a couple of tacos short of a combination plate. Imprisonment will only make her existing mental problems worse, and nobody will be served by that.

i've had it to the teeth with people having it to the teeth.

Primarily because the law needs an arbitrary point at which to make the distinction. And personally, I am mighty leery of the concept of a governmental requirement for any medical procedure, especially surgery.

How many men out there have had their lives ruined by forced, aggregious, child-support since only women have a say?

And still not get visitation?

I don't know if she should be charged with murder, but definitely guilty of severe selfishness, and IMO, reckless endangerment.



*head explode* WTF?? How was that going to ruin her life? :confused:



Yes she made a decision, but one that put the fate of her children at risk. IMO (quite strongly), once a woman finds out she is pregnant, and decides to keep the baby, then she should do whatever it takes to make sure that the welfare and health of the unborn child is damned near perfect. She was told several times that the fate of her unborn children was at risk if she did not get a C-section. She willingly chose not to have the procedure, and now one of her twins is dead. She'll have to live with that for the rest of her life. And what about the live twin? For that child to find out that his/her mother chose to go against the doctor's orders, just for the sake of VANITY! Goddamn..just when you think you've heard it all, and that people can't get more thoughtless! :mad:



Mother fuck! If that even happens... :angry: :rattat:

You should look at medicaid numbers. You might be surprised.

Good to go.

After a year at a psychiatric facility you learn who is truly sick and who needs a boot in the ass. Most people just need a boot in the ass.

This is conjecture but, she probably has a long history of problems but was allowed to continue with minimal or no help.

This is quite possibly similar to that woman in Texas who killed all of her kids who had a gaggle of kids, a gaggle of problems, etc.

I heard on the news that she had had two C-sections done already, so if in the event this is true, then she should have known what the procedure would have entailed. (I could be wrong in what I heard, so if someone has news to the contrary, please post..TIA).

Major therapy is in high order here.

As I said, once it's out, it's half-and-half. Therefore, the man is responsible for support. But I agree that [legally required] support is often excessive, and visitation is too often denied. That's a different issue.

We own our own bodies regardless of whether or not there is a fetus growing inside of us. We each have sole dominion over our bodies, minds, and lives, and nobody including government has any legitimate authority to tell someone else what they must or must not do with thier body.

She was willing to let the fetus out, but not at the cost of having herself cut. She, and she alone has decision making power over her body and should not be punished under any circumstances for choosing not to go through surgery whether or not something growing inside her would live or not.

She is under no obligation to go through surgery and government has no legitimate authority to make her or to punish her if she doesn't.

To say she should be punished for choosing not to have surgery (regardless of what occurred as a result of that decision) is to say that we are slaves and the government has more claim on our bodies, minds, and labor than we do for ourselves. In other words we the people are property and our owner is the government.

Of course the reality is that government is the servant and we the people are its masters. And the powers granted to government are very limited in scope.

As I said, once it's out, it's half-and-half. Therefore, the man is responsible for support. But I agree that [legally required] support is often excessive, and visitation is too often denied. That's a different issue.

Ahhh... the definition of half-and-half is the woman has custody and the man has visitation? How very draconian. When the day comes when the two parents are equally considered for custody in the first place instead of the farce that goes on now, only then will it be half-and-half.

What--do I sound bitter? ;)

Ok, so it's perfectly fine to decide that you want to have a baby, only to put it's life in jeopardy right before it was born for vanity reasons?

Quote:

She was willing to let the fetus out, but not at the cost of having herself cut. She, and she alone has decision making power over her body and should not be punished under any circumstances for choosing not to go through surgery whether or not something growing inside her would live or not.

Tell that to the twin that lived. Don't expect him or her to feel the same way.

Quote:

She is under no obligation to go through surgery and government has no legitimate authority to make her or to punish her if she doesn't.

"To make her"...no. "to punish her"...yes. Even if the charge isn't murder, it'll be something else, and rightfully so.

Quote:

To say she should be punished for choosing not to have surgery (regardless of what occurred as a result of that decision) is to say that...

She was irresponsible.

Quote:

...we are slaves and the government has more claim on our bodies, minds, and labor than we do for ourselves. In other words we the people are property and our owner is the government.

A woman isn't forced to be pregnant...that is her choice. She also must take on the responsibility to put that unborn child's needs FIRST above her OWN, and if that means get the damned C-section if the doctor strongly recommends it!

Quote:

Of course the reality is that government is the servant and we the people are its masters. And the powers granted to government are very limited in scope.

Well then, she also had the choice to NOT become pregnant if the "horrors" of pregnancy and all that comes with it was too much to bear. Nothing's been decided yet.

Failure to prevent a death, even if you can do so, does not make you a killer. If I know CPR, and I see you dying, and yet I don't do anything to save you, I have not killed you. I simply have not used my abilities to save you. However, had I actually attempted to save you, and stopped giving you CPR before more help arrives, I can (or could anyway, at the time I had my origional CPR training) be held accountable for your death. Just because I can save your life, doesn't mean I have to.

Which is why you'd better never start to choke to death or stop breathing around me. Because if you do, you're going to end up pushing up dasies.

Quzah.

More information comes to light...

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0312042utah1.html

She did eventually have the emergency C-section, but it was too late for the one twin who was already dead (which the doctors already knew at that point, they were just trying to save the other one). She's being charged with child endangerment (not murder,) and not because she didn't want the C-section but because the surviving twin tested positive for cocaine and alcohol. In addition to that, she admitted to smoking pot while pregnant and in fact kept demanding to go outside and smoke a cigarette first before they could begin the C-section.

(edit: oops, sorry--she's simply ALSO being charged with child endangerment of the second one. She's still being charged with murder.)

She should claim religion. She could say it's her religious belief that it be natural. It was the will of god, or what not, that the child live if it were meant to live, and die if it were meant to die.

How is this any different than people who say they'll pray for their kid to get better, rather than use the latest (or even old) medical treatments to ensure that it get better? There's people that forgo medical treatment that would guarantee their survival, because it's their belief that they shouldn't do so.

How is this different? No, she probably doesn't believe that, but she could claim it, and the end result would be the same.

Or, she could claim something along the lines of natural selection. Though I doubt people would like this. But basicly, the child wasn't strong enough, lucky enough, whatever enough for it to survive in nature. In nature, there is no such thing as a C-section.

Anyway...

Utah? She's fucked. Again. I slay me. I really do.

Quzah.

Cocaine aside, the surviving child is going to be one fucked up kid.

Mom, from prison: "Hi daughter."
Daughter: "Now tell me again why I don't have a [brother/sister]?"
Mom: "Well I didn't really feel like having a C-section. Sorry."

Fucked up I tell you. That kid will need some serious therapy.

Quzah.

A murder charge in this scenario is stupid, even with the additional details Clodfobble provided via thesmokinggun.com. Wreckless Endangerment, sure. But murder? No.

But, it IS Utah, the (self-)righteousness capital of the US. Damn Utahns. *cough*

Radar, Hmm, so the government (funded by us) has no right to stop a woman from smoking or drinking during her pregnancy, but then the government (again our $$$) has to later spend money on the child because of all sorts of physical and mental damage the kid ends up with.


I guess to be fair, the governement should tell parents of fetal alcohol syndrom kids that it's their problem and no help will be given, let them handle it themselves. The school system is not going to treat that child any different than a normal one, because it would be unfair to all the other parents to have to pay for the consequences of the free choices taken by the one parent.

Quzah the humanitarian has spoken.

BTW it's "daisies".

Humanitarian? Where'd you ever get that idea? Here you go.

On a side note, I can't keep speeling everything right. You'd have nothing to do around here.

Quzah.

I was being ironic.



Roxanne Kowalski: I was being ironic.
C.D. Bales: Oh, ho, ho, irony! Oh, no, no, we don't get that here. See, uh, people ski topless here while smoking dope, so irony's not really a, a high priority. We haven't had any irony here since about, uh, '83, when I was the only practitioner of it. And I stopped because I was getting tired of being stared at.

How is that ironic? Or did you mean ironic in the sense of "He knows CPR, but won't use it?"

Which again, isn't ironic. It's actually quite fitting to the topic at hand. She knew that a C-section would save the kid, but she opted not to use it.

Perhaps ironic in the sense of likes animals, doesn't care about people? Which really isn't ironic either. I donno. I just don't see the irony.

Quzah.

Some people (incorrectly) use the word "ironic" interchangably with "sarcastic." I believe dar512 meant "sarcastic."

Is it ironic to define sarcasm? *cough*

Which in itself would be hilarious, coming from a post where "Conan the Grammarian" corrected my spelling. :D It may or may not not be irony, but it would definately be hilarity.

Quzah.

I didn't say it was perfectly fine. I think it's a stupid and selfish decision, but it's her decision to make and nobody can make it for her. Nor may anyone punish her for choosing what to do with her own body. The death of a child is unfortuate, but does not justify government intervention into this woman's sole dominion over her own body. It is my personal opinion that such selfish people should not have children, but that doesn't mean the government should prevent it or get involved. It only means everyone would be better off if they didn't have kids. The one that died is most likely the luckier of the two. She can base her stupid decision on vanity, or the direction of the wind for that matter and it doesn't give anyone else claim over her body including something growing inside her.

I don't care how they feel. Their feelings don't matter, nor do yours, mine, or the combined feelings of everyone on earth other than the person whose body it is.

Wrong. The only criminal here is the one who charged her with any crime at all. She not only should get away without a single punishment, she should get a lot of money for being wrongly arrested.

Perhaps. In my opinion she made a poor decision, but government isn't here to punish us for our poor decision with our own bodies or anything growing inside them. Government has no say in the matter.

Says who? You? She alone decides whose needs come first and who has the greatest claim on her body. Not you, not me, the father, or the government. Since it's her body she can decide that her needs come first and are above those of an unborn fetus inside her.

Yes, the choice is hers (not yours) to become pregnant, to remain pregnant, and whether or not to have a C-Section regardless of what happens as a result. And nobody on earth or anywhere else has any legitimate authority to tell her she can't make that decision or to punish her for anything that happens as a result of her decisions pertaining to her body.

The use of cocaine again is a personal decision which again is her decision to make regardless of whether or not she has a fetus or other parasite inside of her. Again, I think it's a poor decision, but it's irrelevant to the major topic at hand which is her decision not to have a C-Section

Yes, the government (regardless of who funds it) has no right to stop any woman from smoking, drinking, or using any drug during her pregnancy and the government also has no right to take our money to pay for the healthcare of anyone regardless of who they are. Nobody is entitled to anything they didn't pay for (or otherwise obtain honestly) and healthcare is not a right. Government has no legal authority to be involved in healthcare, retirement, charity, etc.

I agree. They should tell that to anyone who needs medical care and they should stop preventing people who know how to give care but don't hold a license from giving it.

I'm against publically funded schools anyway.

Hey look, I'm quoting myself to point out my own error... how ironic. I guess that by it's definition, "irony" can technically be synonymous to "sarcasm:"
...though that's not common usage. At least not in well-educated circles. *Cough* :D

*Ducks*

Well, just as you don't think she should be punished, neither should whomever arrested her. Doing one's job isn't a crime.

quote:She also must take on the responsibility to put that unborn child's needs FIRST above her OWN, and if that means get the damned C-section if the doctor strongly recommends it!


Common sense says so. Guess I don't need to bring up again how fucked up parents send out fucked up children into the world.

I agree, somebody has to protect the gene pool.

Webster's defines sarcasm as "a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance". I looked everywhere [even under my chair in case it had fallen out], but I didn't see anything in Webster that says whether the utterer would be educated or not.

In this case, I used the word 'ironic' so that I could include the quote from Roxanne - one of my favorite movies.

Make that compassionate conservative.;)

Wow...I almost missed Radar's libertarian indoctrinations.

She couldn't know that. She might have known that surgery comes with it's own set of risks, and didn't guarantee a good outcome though.

Sorry, I only got half way through the thread before my head exploded.

I wonder when exactly we went from, "should we kill it?" to a cutesy politically acceptable thing called "pro choice"?

When some people tried to answer the first question for other people.

Shouldn't woman decide what others are going to do with HER body. Or she should offer her body to anybody who wants to cut her?

That's why people come to the cellar.

To find answers to questions like that.

I'm only here for the free beer that Toad promised.

So? Where is my answer? :-) I'm here, and waiting :-)

(just kidding)

Patience Grasshopper. As one's post count increases so does one's wisdom.

Eh, I don't think so...just look at Jimbo...or Radar...or me.

I didn't say it was a direct proportion...

Ok. I see that you are a wisest one here. Can you clear an idea of 'pro life' for me?

1. Fetus is a separate person, so if we kill him/her - it is a murder. Right?

2. State can make a decision to cut someone’s body (woman) for benefit of said separate person (Fetus). Right?

So, basically State can make decision to butcher anybody if that can benefit some person. Am I right? Or I lost a track somewhere?

(there can be a milder versions, like they can take just your blood, so there will be no trace of surgery...)

Sure, if one of Bush's Republican friends needs a kidney, they just go down the list of democrats and pick one.
It's good to be the king. :king: