[marktwain]

If she was pregnant, why doesn't this news article mention what happened to the baby? If she was 7-8months there's a very good chance the baby can be saved, though premature. Yet the article has zero mention of him?

A previous article said that the autopsy was indetermanent as to whether she was pregnant or not.

If she was pregnant, is was so early that it was impossible to determine.

[Svartalfiar]

A previous article said that the autopsy was indetermanent as to whether she was pregnant or not.

If she was pregnant, is was so early that it was impossible to determine.

I find that hard to believe. If there were facebook posts about her being pregnant, then she was surely far enough along to be determined for certainty. The only time HGH(?) levels are low enough to be unsure on a proper medical test, is before a chick even misses a period and thinks she might be pregnant.

My guess is she wasn't pregnant (although maybe trying), but since that info came out, the medical examiner doesn't want to look like he's hiding something by claiming the opposite...?

[Svartalfiar]

A previous article said that the autopsy was indetermanent as to whether she was pregnant or not.

If she was pregnant, is was so early that it was impossible to determine.

The thing is, though, is that a pregnancy causes hormone increases in the blood that are easily detectable within a couple weeks after conception (by the first missed period, the blood test can detect a pretty definite answer of HGH(?) levels). So the only time that WOULDN'T be sure, is during the time that the possible pregnant chick would have no idea she might be pregnant yet, and doesn;t even have a missed period yet. So there's be no reason to announce that she was pregnant..?

Also, it's an autopsy. How hard is it to check her ladyparts and see if there was a fetus or not? Obviously she wasn't pregnant enough for them to try to save the baby, so there is no living fetus to be careful of.