I am extremely disturbed by the case of the Utah woman who is being charged with murder after refusing to have a Cesarian Section performed. There are so many issues raised by this case, it's nearly mind-boggling. I received the following correspondence from a local home-birthing midwife (Corinne - I've included her note below as well).

Even considering the troubling facts of the case - the mother was possibly using drugs, was apparently mentally ill - should not cloud the underlying precedent that could be set: Pregnant women could be forced to undergo major abdominal surgery if their doctor even suggests it, under the threat of imprisonment. I delivered my daughter naturally, in a birth center, under the watchful eye of four midwives and my husband. If this woman is successfully convicted of murder, will I no longer have the option of delivering my future children naturally, in a comfortable, safe environment? What if the worst happens, and the baby dies? In addition to dealing with the tremendous grief, and likely overwhelming guilt (I feel guilty when Rhiannon skins her knee, for Pete's sake!), I could be charged with murder and be locked away from my family, from my child(ren)? This is NOT America.

**********************************
My dear friends,

Many of you have heard about the Utah woman, Melissa Ann Rowland, who is in jail under a charge of murder. Your families and friends are going to be discussing it, and I would like to provide you with the point of view of the birthing community, as there is much misinformation and wrong-thinking in the media at this time. I am going to send you two more emails, one is a summary of the position from the birthing community, and the other is a review of the legal issues from a professor of law.

My heart goes out to this woman. She did make some poor choices, such as using drugs, but she is still a person, and a grieving, wounded mother.

I am appalled and gravely concerned that many people in our country are happy to deny her (and by legal precedent, many more pregnant women) the same basic human rights every other American enjoys. You should be aware of the consequences of this and several other recent court cases. You are about to lose the right to "own" your own body, and you are about to lose "ownership" of your children.

Corrine

***********************************

Pastor Martin Niemoller,
Columbia Theological Seminary,
Decautur GA in 1959:

In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me —
and by that time no one was left to speak up.


************************************


Date: Sat Mar 13, 2004 12:10 pm
Subject: GNM 403014 C-section refusal leads to murder charge

Grassroots Network Message 403014
C-section refusal leads to murder charge

Dear Friends,

Some of you may have already heard about this sad and disturbing case in Utah: a woman who refused a recommended cesarean section for twins, subsequently one of the twins was stillborn, and the woman has been charged with murder.

The various details and circumstances of this case do not change the fact that this woman is being prosecuted for declining to follow the advice of doctors, or the fact that she is being charged with murder for the death of her unborn baby. After the fact, the doctors claim the baby would have lived had she agreed to the cesarean surgery when they first advised her to have one, which of course no one can predict with certainty.

Here are several links to newspaper articles in Utah papers. I hope you will read them. Together they are good examples of how the facts can be selectively reported and/or twisted, or a broader picture given when a reporter does a more careful and thorough job of researching a story.

Links:
From the Salt Lake Tribune:

Charge against W. Jordan mother creates legal challenge

Mother is charged in stillborn son's death

Rowland's case raises fundamental questions, ethicists, politicians warn

This case is important to understand for anyone who believes that women should be able to choose how, where and with whom to give birth. If a woman can be charged for murder for a stillbirth because she refused a cesarean section, what is to stop prosecutors from charging murder (or neglect or abuse) for a woman who chooses a home birth with a midwife, declining the technology and expertise of the hospital?

National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW) is the organization that provided legal support for the South Carolina woman now in jail for the next eight years for the stillbirth of her baby (for those of you who are CfM Members, see "Legal Issues for Midwifery: Emerging Trends?" in the CfM News, Spring 2003; also find more information on the NAPW web site www.advocatesforpregnantwomen.org.) From the web site: "NAPW uses a variety of strategies, from litigation and public education to organizing on the local and national level, to ensure that," among other things, "Women do not lose their constitutional and human rights as a result of pregnancy." Please read NAPW's commentary, below, as it explains related cases and important issues for women and childbirth that this case brings up.

After you have read these articles and commentary, are you feeling like, "what can I do to help?" First and most important, take some time to understand this case and its implications for women and their babies, and for midwifery. If you read about this case in the newspaper, consider writing a letter to the editor that brings up some of these important considerations. Then, if you feel so moved, I'm sure that National Advocates for Pregnant Women could use some support, since it is a tax-exempt organization that depends on donations for its work.

Sincerely,

Susan Hodges, gatekeeper

**************************

Fri, 12 Mar 2004
NAPW Commentary on Murder Arrest of Pregnant Woman Who Refused a C-Section

An arrest in Utah yesterday of 28 year old Melissa Rowland who allegedly committed murder by refusing a recommended C-section represents a shocking abuse of state authority and a dangerous disregard for medical ethics.

In this case prosecutors claim that a woman pregnant with twins rejected advice of her physicians to have a cesarean section. Prosecutors assert that the stillbirth of one of the twins was caused by her refusal to undergo this surgery. According to the law, however, pregnant women, like other Americans have the right to decide whether or not to undergo surgery. The American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists as well other leading medical groups similarly conclude that the final decision must be the woman's.

These legal and medical "ethical principles" make sense for both women and children. Doctors are not infallible and their advice is just that, advice. Recently a woman went to a hospital in Pennsylvania ready to deliver her seventh child. For reasons that remain far from clear, the hospital decided she needed a c-section and when she refused they went to court. They asked for and won an order giving the hospital custody of the fetus before during and after delivery and the right to take custody of the pregnant woman and force her to have the cesarean surgery. She and her husband fled the hospital and delivered a perfectly health baby without surgery. Similar cases abound. In Georgia doctors got a court order claiming that without a c-section the baby had a 99% chance of dying and the woman a 50% chance of dying. The court granted the order, she fled and delivered a healthy baby vaginally. Neither women nor children are protected by a system that makes women flee from hospitals or subjects them to unnecessary surgery.

Angela Carder was not as lucky. Critically ill with a recurrence of cancer and 25 weeks pregnant, she, her family and attending physicians agreed to focus on prolonging her young life for as long as possible. The Hospital however sought a court order forcing her to have a c-section. Despite testimony that the surgery could kill her, the court concluded that the fetus had a right to life and ordered her to be cut open against her will. The surgery was performed: the fetus died within two hours and Angela died within two days with the c-section listed as a contributing factor. No one suggested arresting the doctor or hospital officials for murder, in that case arguably a double homicide.

Ayesha Madyun survived. She was forced to have a c-section based on the claim that she had been in labor too long and that her baby was at risk of dying from an infection. Her request to be allowed to wait longer before having the surgery so she could try natural delivery was portrayed to the court as an irrational religious objection to surgery. The court granted the order and after Ms. Madyun had been forcibly cut open they found that there was in fact no infection.

The ability to get a court order or threaten pregnant women with arrest has many negative consequences beyond denying pregnant women rights and performing unnecessary surgery that poses health risks to both the pregnant woman and fetus. In another Illinois case, doctors sought a court order for a forced c-section claiming the pregnant woman and her husband held irrational religious beliefs opposing all surgery. The doctors ran to the court instead of spending time with the patient. The court refused the order, the baby was delivered naturally, and it turned out that if the doctors had spent the time communicating with the patient and her family rather than judging them and rushing to court, they would have learned that it was misunderstanding not an absolute objection to surgery that made it appear that this couple was refusing a recommended (but unnecessary) c-section.

Today both the law and medicine agree that coerced medical interventions on pregnant women are an abuse of medical and state authority and that while pregnant women do not always make the right decision, in America, it is the person on whom the surgery is to be performed who gets to decide. In spite of this, Utah prosecutors apparently think that a pregnant woman who exercises her constitutional and common-law right to refuse medical advice can be arrested for murder. This is not only a clear misuse of the law, it is dangerous to children and fundamentally dehumanizing to pregnant women and their families.

Lynn M. Paltrow
Executive Director
National Advocates for Pregnant Women
153 Waverly Place, 6th Floor
New York, New York 10014
212-255-9252
917-921-7421
212-254-9679 (fax)
LMPNYC@a...
www.advocatesforpregnantwomen.org


===============================
SHARE WITH OTHERS IN YOUR AREA!
Feel free to forward the Grassroots Network messages to others who might be interested!

HOW TO JOIN THE GRASSROOTS NETWORK LIST
Visit the Citizens for Midwifery website at www.cfmidwifery.org. Scroll to the bottom of the page and enter your e-mail address. It's that simple!
================================