Posted on 12/01/2005 9:38:32 AM PST by FeeinTennessee
LAW OF THE LAND Ruling: Pregnant moms can harm babies at will Court says unborn children not 'human,' mothers can't be prosecuted for conduct
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: November 30, 2005 11:14 p.m. Eastern
By Joe Kovacs © 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
The Supreme Court of Hawaii has ruled that unborn children are not "human beings," and therefore women cannot be prosecuted for causing the death of babies by harmful behavior during their pregancies.
The unanimous decision overturns the manslaughter conviction of 32-year-old Tayshea Aiwohi, who was found guilty in connection with the death of her newborn son by smoking crystal methamphetamine shortly before his birth.
"I'm extremely happy and grateful," said Aiwohi. "I believe [the case] changed me into a better person and I just hope to share that with others."
"My son can finally lay to rest," her husband, Kimo Aiwohi, told reporters. "And I'm very happy for my wife."
Tayshea gave birth to her son, Treyson, July 15, 2001, but the boy perished within two days with high levels of methamphetamine and amphetamine in his system, according to the local coroner.
The woman allegedly admitted to using the drugs for three days before the birth and took a "hit" on the morning her son was delivered.
In their ruling, the justices cited statutes noting a crime needed to be committed against "a human being." They declared since Treyson was not a "person" when Tayshea was smoking the drugs, she could not be prosecuted for harming the infant in her womb.
"The proscribed conduct must have been committed at a time when Treyson 'qualified' as a 'person,' defined by the Hawaii Penal Code as 'a human being who has been born and is alive,'" they wrote.
"It is so insane," Nancy Heisser of Grants Pass, Ore., told WorldNetDaily. "A little baby died, and the mother walks away scot-free. This is a travesty against this little one."
Beyond this specific case, some are worried about the decision's impact in the future.
"If something happens to any fetus under any circumstance, by [this] ruling, there could be no prosecution in any circumstance," Republican State Sen. Sam Slom told the Honolulu Star-Bulletin.
Rep. Sylvia Luke, D-Honolulu
But House Judiciary Chairwoman Sylvia Luke, a Democrat, agrees with the decision.
"At least from the Judiciary Committee's standpoint, we don't have any interest in changing the current law to allow for such prosecution. I think that runs into a very dangerous ground because it can be expanded to not just drugs, but the state infringing on the woman's life when the woman is pregnant," Luke told the paper. "Are we now going to say that pregnant woman can't smoke or [dictate] how much calcium a person would take?"
Interestingly, while pregnant mothers are shielded from prosecution for their own detrimental behavior, others are not.
Under the new, federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act, people other than the mother who cause the death of an unborn child can face prosecution for the baby's demise.
Laci Peterson
Also known as "Laci and Conner's Law," the measure was enacted in the wake of the murder of Laci Peterson of Modesto, Calif., and her unborn son. Laci's husband, Scott Peterson, was convicted of murder and is currently on death row.
In June, Gerardo Flores of Texas was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life in prison after kicking his pregnant girlfriend repeatedly in the stomach to cause her to lose the couple's twins. The girlfriend, Erica Basoria, did not want the babies to be born and allowed Flores to kick her, but she was not charged with any wrongdoing by the state of Texas.
Such a scenario worries John Long, executive director of the Hawaii Right to Life.
"If that had been a boyfriend or a husband pressuring [Tayshea] to take crack or alcohol ... that would damage the unborn child, the ruling would have been entirely different," he told the Star-Bulletin. "I think that's where we got to come to grips with some sort of an equitable standard that is right for all."
According to the Honolulu Advertiser, "no appeals court in the country has upheld a prosecution for the death of a baby based on the mother's conduct while pregnant."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Isn't it odd that the medical definition of death is that moment the heart stops beating, but for some inexplicable reason, the existance of a beating heart is not proof of life??
Please don't use "we". I refuse to be included in the group of people who systematically kill their own children.
They are doing this to their children. I have kept all of mine very much alive.
According to the article, the Hawaii Penal Code defines a person as someone "who has been born and is alive". I don't know if there is a feticide statute in Hawaii.
Is a premature delivery (removed by surgey) a birth?
Is this like the Cuban refugee status? If you are at sea, you do not get sanctuary but if your feet touch land, they do?
So, I guess this means, in Hawaii, that if someone stabs a pregnant mother and kills the unborn non human then they can't be tried for murder if the mother lives? Or does this ruling, as so many democrat rulings do, only apply to the mother, does the baby miraculously turn human again if someone other than the mother kills it?
Same with descriptions of people who are "brain dead". "Well they don't have a quality life". So a baby has brain activity and a beating heart and other functioning organs yet is not "alive".
All people on artificial life support systems aren't really alive either. They are not viable (for the time being).
Without a feticide statute, no they cannot be tried for murder under Hawaii's definition of person.
How was the baby able to "die" two days later, if it was not "born" and "alive"?
What, then, was the cause of death? How did the illegal drugs happen to be in the baby's system?
I truly am trying to understand the logic; but it just is not there...
Crazy thought, isn't it?
Life with support, even dependence on that support, does not negate the existence of life. If it does, where shall we draw the line?
Are you really alive if you require anti-rejection medication to keep your heart transplant from failing? Are you really alive if you are on kidney dialysis, without which you would die? Is a paratrooper really alive when his life is dependent upon the nylon cords holding him to his chute?
There are enough anecdotal experiences from coma survivors about being far more aware than others ever dreamed, that one should be extremely careful about declaring a person to be "not really alive".
Not taking vitamins, drinking orange juice or going for prenatal visits is somewhat less likely to cause major problems for the unborn child than, oh, say, smoking methamphetamines (can cause brain damage due to decreased oxygen and death, among other things), shooting up heroin (brain damage or death), and use of LSD (low birth weight, poor muscular development. Nevermind what LEGAL drugs to to those children: tobacco use cuts the oxygen supply to the baby by 25%, stunts growth, and doubles the risk of SIDS, while alcohol causes fetal alcohol syndrome (developmental delays and behavior problems, as well as possible heart defects).
If the mother of an unborn child is going to to these things to the child BEFORE he or she is born, I find it unlikely that the mother will suddenly become a model parent afterwards.
Taking prenatal vitamins and seeing a doctor or midwife during pregnancy is a good idea, but not doing these things doesn't show the utter disrespect for the future of another human being that using drugs while pregnant does.
Mothers who take such drugs during their pregnancy should have their parental rights terminated, plain and simple.
yep. Abortionists and slave owners view some people as property that can be bought, sold, traded, and killed whenever the "owner" pleases.
>>>"My son can finally lay to rest," her husband, Kimo Aiwohi, told reporters. "And I'm very happy for my wife." >>>
Sick bastard.
Have they determined when it IS a human being?
Apparently, it is a human being if it is in a position to decide that those who can't protest the decision aren't.
Pro-life ping!
If this is what the law says, do we want the law changed or do we want judges to decide based upon their own feelings about what the law should say?
Aren't conservatives against judicial activism?
SD
Please don't use "we". I refuse to be included in the group of people who systematically kill their own children.
They are doing this to their children. I have kept all of mine very much alive.
It just has to move about 12 to 18 inches or so, then it magically becomes a human. Nifty trick, 'eh?
I wouldn't bet on it. She hasn't met her maker yet!!!
I dont think you can mandate that they active do something, like take vitamins or drink OJ. But you can passively prevent them from pursuing known harmful behavior.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.