Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hawaii high court says fetus not a person, reverses mother’s manslaughter charge
Catholic News Agency ^ | December 2, 2005

Posted on 12/02/2005 3:04:41 PM PST by NYer

Honolulu, Dec. 02, 2005 (CNA) - Yesterday, the Hawaii state Supreme Court handed over a precedent-setting opinion, ruling that 32-year old Tayshea Aiwohi could not be convicted of killing her unborn child, because at the time, it was not a “person.”

In July of 2001, Aiwohi gave birth to her son, Treyson, who died two days later due to his mother’s use of methamphetamine while she was pregnant.

She was initially convicted of manslaughter but was able to appeal the decision all the way to the high court. To date, no appeals court in the U.S. has ever upheld an manslaughter charge for a mother who caused the death of her child while pregnant.

In their Thursday decision, all five of Hawaii’s Supreme Court Justices agreed that the charge should be overturned because, they said, the child was not a “person” when Aiwohi smoked the drug.

When he was born, Treyson was found to have had high levels of methamphetamine in his system and Aiwohi even admitted to having taken a “hit” on the morning of his birth.

According to the Honolulu Advertiser, City Deputy Prosecutor Glenn Kim, who handled the trial and appeal, was disappointed in the decision. "We continue to believe that babies such as Treyson Aiwohi deserve the protection of the law," he said.

"And we also continue to believe that people like Tayshea Aiwohi doing what she did to her baby continue to deserve to suffer the consequences of the law for those actions."


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections; US: Hawaii
KEYWORDS: abortion; fetalrights; manslaughter; moralabsolutes; murder; ruling
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-100 next last
To: right-wingin_It; caisson71

When Monsignor George Talbot (who later went mad) quipped that the job of the laity was "to hunt, to shoot, to entertain" Newman responded that the Church would look awfully silly without them. The quip is the title of a book on clericalism by Russell Shaw that more people should read.


61 posted on 12/02/2005 6:22:37 PM PST by Hieronymus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
Since the principle of Common Law is to protect prenatal children as soon as they can be reliably detected, the principle should certainly apply to a child whose existence had been confirmed for months, and who was two days postpartum when he died.

Very good, right to the heart of the matter and your logic is impeccable.

62 posted on 12/02/2005 6:22:45 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Battle Axe

This is the truth: According to Barbara Boxer in a live interview I heard with my own ears: a baby does not become a person until the Mother exits the hospital with her infant!! Anything within the hospital is fair game in Boxer's mind.


63 posted on 12/02/2005 6:26:45 PM PST by Alissa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Alissa
So if the mother is carrying her baby through the hospital, heading for the exit, and some deranged lunatic grabs the baby and kills it before she gets out, the killer isn't guilty of murder?
64 posted on 12/02/2005 6:34:58 PM PST by thoughtomator (What'ya mean you formatted the cat!?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: supercat; Mrs. Don-o

Duh! Funny! Read the line before it: "...whatever one chooses to call it, ("it") has rights as any individual human being has - Because it is a human and not some other creature."


I was making the point that whatever those pro-abortion - anti-life people choose to call the unborn (and now - born) baby(ies), "it" will Always be a human or as you said humans - I wasn't talking about the numbers!

And when I said "evolve" - I should have put the quotation marks around the word evolve because those same types of people don't beleive in "development" - they believe in "evolution!"


Mrs. Don-o - If I "muture" much more - I may be exiting this world!


65 posted on 12/02/2005 6:37:11 PM PST by Anita1 (You can't argue against the truth!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

Comment #66 Removed by Moderator

To: Mrs. Don-o
But let's look more closely at the logic of the law. "Quickening" is a measure, not of the child's humanity, but of the mother's sensitivity: that is, it is determined by the mother's own self-reported perception of the child's movement. Certainly before the development of modern medical imaging, hormone-based diagnostic tests and so forth, it wasn't even possible to prove that a woman was pregnant until she herself reported movement.

Obviously if a woman had a 'miscarriage' that occured before the embryo has developed sufficiently to be visible, the miscarriage would have been a non-event as nobody would have known about it.

On the other hand, a woman who had a miscarriage later in her pregnancy--but still before she would have otherwise known she was pregnant--could very well become aware of it.

Applying the principles of common law, IMHO, would suggest that if the heartbeat of the fetus is detectable, it should be construed as a person, but probably not before that. After all, if the heartbeat is detectable, one can tell that the fetus is alive at the moment one is 'looking'. If there is no detectable heartbeat, it may be difficult to determine that the embryo is still alive (obviously it must have been alive to reach whatever stage of development it's in, but instantaneous determination of life is much trickier).

67 posted on 12/02/2005 6:47:10 PM PST by supercat (Sony delinda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: NYer
all five of Hawaii’s Supreme Court Justices agreed that the charge should be overturned because, they said, the child was not a “person”

Oh REALLY?? Was it a puppy?

68 posted on 12/02/2005 6:50:33 PM PST by Dr. Scarpetta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Then why is it illegal to get an abortion after a certain date of being pregnant? It's a baby not a fetus.


69 posted on 12/02/2005 8:33:21 PM PST by rfreedom4u (Native Texan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
It's clearly frustrating to see what happens when the "Stench from the Bench" determines public policy.

This ruling in HI is just as despicable as Roe and Griswold, which set up the so-called "right to privacy"--the only judicially-recognized absolute right that "exists" in the Constitiution solely by judicial fiat)

But while the "Right to Privacy" might be manifest in this ruling, it's a lot more like Dred Scott v. Sandford, in which SCOTUS, under the Taney Court, attempted to define human beings along racial lines, namely that African-Americans were property and not human beings. Then, look what happened--a few years later, the bloody Civil War broke out.

It's clear that Dred Scott was so controversial it literally led to civil anguish, which inturn bred civil war. And it was because the Court attempted to squarely define who was human.

That said, it is not to any organ of Government, nor to Society to define humanity, but to the Natural and Moral Laws given to us by God, who is the Author of Life.

70 posted on 12/02/2005 8:43:45 PM PST by rzeznikj at stout (Liberalism: The world's singular leading cause of truth decay...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
"If there is anyone who strikes a pregnant woman or gives her a poison which produces an abortion, if the foetus be already formed or animated, and especially if it be animated, he commits homicide." Henry de Bracton (c.1250)

Ironically, this supports my assertion.

71 posted on 12/02/2005 10:09:28 PM PST by tortoise (All these moments lost in time, like tears in the rain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: caisson71

Don't get me wrong..The layity is also a member of the church body. But we're the sheep and they're the shepards. In discussion, the phrase "The Church" typically means the clergy..(at least when discussing the Catholic Church). It's just how it's always been discused - because the power in the Catholic church is with the clergy. Lay there have no voting rights etc. I think this clear separation of lay and clergy has protected the church for so long, where some other churches have more or less been gang-rushed by the layity, and well, are not doing so well today (you know those rainbow churches etc.) Secondly, the fact that all Bishops are answerable to one man has made for easy dispute resolution through the ages and kept things pretty uniform.


72 posted on 12/02/2005 11:23:40 PM PST by right-wingin_It
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: right-wingin_It
"I think it can be appealed to Federal court, right? Didn't the Justice Department recently say it recognizes a fetus as a person and would prosecute double homicide cases of mother and child accordingly. Dealing with federal law here."

I was wondering about the same Federal Law, myself. Specifically I was reminded of the Scott Peterson case. He was convicted of killing his wife and his unborn baby. Hopefully his conviction will not be overturned, due to the Hawaii reversal.

For some reason, the jury gave him a reduced conviction, of second degree murder, in the death of the baby, instead of first degree, as in the case of his wife. I never understood why the jury made that decision, because obviously Peterson knew full well his baby would die when he murdered his wife. The advanced knowledge would make the baby's murder be pre-meditated as well. Therefore, according to simple logic, the jury should have convicted him of First Degree murder in the baby's death.

It's very possible that some of the jurors were of the ridiculous mindset of non-personhood for the unborn baby and a compromise was made to convict on the lesser charge. We may eventually see the day, when persons like Peterson, will have their conviction overturned in the court. I certainly hope that will not be the case, but based on some the decisions made in the courts, I will not be surprised.

Currently there is a case before the Supreme Court concerning parent notification before their minor daughter has an abortion. If the Court rules against Parents and in favor of Planned Parenthood, sadly I will then assume the Court will never rule against abortion, in any form. :( How and why, Planned Parenthood ever got the power to prevent parents from making medical decisions for their minor children, is bizarre and very frightening.
73 posted on 12/02/2005 11:26:43 PM PST by Pepper777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj
This week's Torah portion is Toledot which starts the description of the life of Jacob and Esau: Of thier mother, Rebekah, it says, "The children (habanim) struggled in her womb."

Thank you!

I read somewhere, though, that the Jewish faith approves of abortion. Is that true?

74 posted on 12/02/2005 11:31:21 PM PST by NYer (“Socialism is the religion people get when they lose their religion")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: obnogs; tortoise
On the civil side, would the child be able to sue teh mother for damages if aharm results from any of these actions by the mother?

Careful there ... slippery slope.

In France, a child sued his mother for not aborting him, and won!

75 posted on 12/02/2005 11:36:27 PM PST by NYer (“Socialism is the religion people get when they lose their religion")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: rfreedom4u

"Then why is it illegal to get an abortion after a certain date of being pregnant? It's a baby not a fetus."

I agree. It is a baby~!! The word fetus is a latin word meaning BABY. The use of the word *fetus* is to DE-HUMANIZE the baby, imo. I'm not so sure that abortion is illegal after a certain date. I know that some states allow for late term abortions such as Florida.

Early this year a woman went to Florida seeking a 2nd or 3rd term abortion. The woman was given an injection through her stomach that should have killed the baby. Hours later she was then given a drug to create labor. Apparently the injection/shot, missed it's mark and didn't kill the baby as planned. The woman actually delivered the baby alive. There was NO doctor on duty at the hedious clinic. The baby lived for a few minutes. He was born on the bathroom floor of the clinic.

I saw a picture of the baby online. In fact, it was here on FR that I read about the baby. Most likely the baby could have survived with the proper care. A friend of mine's daughter had a baby premature 6 1/2 months recently. She was only two pounds and is doing great. The mother who wanted her baby aborted was outraged that her baby didn't die before it was born. She may have sued the abortion clinic. I'll never forget seeing that photo of that sweet little dead baby. So sad.


76 posted on 12/02/2005 11:59:59 PM PST by Pepper777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Battle Axe

Boxer was being pinned into a corner during a debate (by someone I don't remember his name) on partial birth abortion. He was trying to get her to commit to exactly what point it is considered murder. In her stuttering, stupid way, it finally came out when the mother left the hospital. I'll never forget that debate. It should be heard by everyone.


77 posted on 12/03/2005 12:54:42 AM PST by Alissa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: caisson71; Salvation; NYer; Coleus

http://www.catholicleague.org/research/naral.htm


78 posted on 12/03/2005 5:56:26 AM PST by Do not dub me shapka broham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: NYer

<< Tayshea Aiwohi could not be convicted of killing her unborn child, because at the time, it was not a person. >>

In Hawaii, a two day-old child is not a person?

In abjectly "Democrat" Hawaii, a judge has not a brain.

I guess every one is a member of the newly discovered ancient "native hawaian" tribe and is therefore not required to study United States Constitutional Law at law school?

And wouldn't know an American Declaration of Independence, Constitution or Bill of Rights if one of them bit him in the arse?


79 posted on 12/03/2005 8:19:47 AM PST by Brian Allen (Patriotic, Immigrant & therefore a 'Hyphenated,' AMERICAN-American by choice. An Aviator by Grace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: calrighty; NYer

<< And I thought things were bad in the 60's when I grew up ........ >>

Things were.

And now they're judges on various state and federal courts.

And are "teachers" and "professors" at schools, colleges and universities.

Dear God in Heaven! - Indeed.


80 posted on 12/03/2005 8:24:55 AM PST by Brian Allen (Patriotic, Immigrant & therefore a 'Hyphenated,' AMERICAN-American by choice. An Aviator by Grace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-100 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson