Shifting sands of blame -- was Russell Yates really responsible?

WASHINGTON, March 18 (UPI) -- On Wednesday, a Houston jury voted unanimously to convict Andrea Yates of murder and Monday she was formally sentenced to life in prison.

After less then four hours, the panel of eight women and four men concluded Yates understood what she was doing when she held her five children -- one by one -- under water in the family bathtub until they were dead.

The enormity of her crime caused a cynical nation to shudder. Though infanticide may now be routine, a multiple murder of children by the mother will still stir the nation.

Part of the callousness comes from what others have called the culture of death. The continued efforts to enforce an abortion-rights ethic on America has, some say, made everyone a little less sensitive to some of life's horrors.

If Andrea Yates has chosen to abort her children over the seven years in which she bore them rather than dispatch them all in a single afternoon, the nation would never have known and those who did would likely not even bat an eyelash.

It is obvious, based on the public record, that Andrea Yates is a sick woman. This was expressed quite clearly by the jury's decision not to impose the death penalty upon her. But the vast majority of women who are mentally ill or suffering from what medical science calls "postpartum depression" do not murder their children.

We do not know if her emotional state was the product of her environment or if it was organic in origin. The professional victimists and apologizers want us to believe that circumstances made her kill her children.

Psychiatrist Sally Satel, writing in Thursday's Wall Street Journal, said that for some, Yates was "an everymother pushed to the brink by the combined demands of domesticity and child rearing."

The feminist wing of the excuse factory has, tacitly or otherwise, embraced that argument, largely because it suits their political agenda.

This ever-present shrill of harpies constantly disparage traditional American domestic life. They prefer to see it as a way to keep women -- even those in industrialized and prosperous nations -- tethered to the values of the 13th century.

Unable to escape the fact that Andrea Yates chose to murder her children, they want to deflect attention onto her husband over time.

Should Russell Yates be held responsible for the dysfunction in his home? Certainly; it takes two people to make a marriage what it is or is not. But is he responsible for the murder of his children -- even indirectly? No.

There are those who argue that Russell Yates was too demanding, too controlling, and was therefore the author of his wife's illness. By extension, he is also the instigator of the murder of his own children.

Andrea Yates made bad choices in her life but she is responsible for them. Even if her husband was woefully incompetent in dealing with her issues, something even a perfect spouse would find difficult, he still is not the one who pushed them into the bathtub.

If he is guilty of anything, it is that he did not act aggressively enough to secure the safety of his children. But the blame-shifters who will soon use this case as a wedge to secure more money from the government and change public policy will not have their aims furthered if they make that argument.

After she was arrested, the Texas chapter of the National Organization for Women announced the formation of an Andrea Yates support group. Deborah Bell, the president, said the purpose was "To be there for her on a personal basis, woman to woman." The coalition would support Russell Yates, she said, as long as he continued to support his wife.

A reasonable person could interpret this as a veiled threat, stick by your wife and we'll leave you alone. Turn on her and we will make you a bigger issue then she is. It is not much of a reach to believe that there are those out there who would rather talk about how Russell Yates treated his wife then what Andrea Yates did to her children.

The result of the trial will be more cries from the harpies for more intervention, more research and, eventually, perhaps, a book that purports to tell the true story of life in the Yates household that will attack the institution of marriage.

The attacks on the environment in the Yates' home will become a part of the plethora of epithets thrown at the traditional family unit and women who think the highest calling in life is to bake chocolate-chip cookies, home school, and sew costumes for their children and their friends -- all things Andrea Yates did.

As the children fade from memory, Andrea Yates will become the national symbol of postpartum depression and the need to do something about it. Her husband will be vilified in the process.

Anyone who doubts this should read the essay "Barefoot and Pregnant" by the pseudonymous "birdman" on the democraticunderground.com Web site. It is a chilling foreshadowing of what is to come.

"Did it ever occur to this idiot that maybe the pressures converging on his wife were overwhelming her? Did it every occur to him to get some help with the housework or maybe send the kids to school so she wouldn't have the added burden of trying to educate one while changing the others diapers? ... Much of this goes back to the view of men that affects a large portion of the Christian right. Females are there to breed, keep house, and take care of the kids and the breadwinner."

The revision will begin slowly. It will not be as crass as that but it will eventually wind up in the same place intellectually.

It may begin with a controversial, scholarly piece in a medical or legal journal, explaining the injustice of the situation and the need to better understand Andrea Yates' circumstances. This will provoke public comment, media attention and commentary on the issue.

"Next up -- Was Andrea Yates really responsible for killing her children? Will look back at the case that shocked the nation."

"Yes, it was horrific," they will say, "but we need to understand her situation. How sick she was. How her husband contributed to the problem."

Soon after that, it will be accepted conventional wisdom that Russell Yates is ultimately to blame for the choice his wife made. By extension, this will apply to all husbands.

Before too long, we will all be asked to believe that the housework made her do it.

the guy's a fruit loop, but he didn't murder anyone. andrea yates filled atub and systematically drowned her 5 kids. he may be a lousy father and have screwed up beliefs, but he is not a murderer. andrea yates and the sympathy from feminists is warped.

I'm just curious about something. We have in this country, doctors, whose job it is to make sure babies are not born alive. They are legally santioned to kill. Some doctors have been known to stick freshly born infants in a bucket of water to drown them. And then we have this crazy mother who drowns her five children and somehow what she did is more grievous than a doctor who drowns a baby who had the utter audacity to not die during the abortion? I guess I can understand now why the NOW gang is rooting for Andrea. The only difference is that the doctors who perform abortions are not insane.

From the beginning, Mr. Yates has seemed to me to be very calm and passive, even after his wife murdered his five children.

Either he has the forgiveness of saint or he is totally out of touch with reality.

Seeing how he reacted to the murders, calmly and passively, I have to wonder how serious and with how much effort he sought to help his wife or take her seriously.

I know he said he sought help and it seems he did but how serious did he consider he problem?

Speaking psychologically, Andre Yates seems to me to have killed the children because it was the only way she could get through to her husband. Even then, he didn't react. He was just as passive.

I'm not Mr.Yates so I don't know his life experience, but he seems to me to be incredibly passive, even to horrific events. I'm not sure he was capable of taking his wifes illness seriously.

I must admit that I am shocked by the blame from all over thrust upon Rusty. He is not a killer. He is a clod, so that must be his crime, being the stereotypical male.

I have tried to defend Rusty to no avail. People want him castrated and forbidden from having more children. The way he describes his children shows the love he had for them and his comment that he didn't know he had to protect his children from within his home speaks volumns. No one could have predicted what Ms. Yates did and alot of Monday morning quarterbacking is going on in this case.

Since Rusty was under a gag order since a few days after the children's deaths up until last week I can't blame him one bit for speaking out after all the speculation made about him and against him.

In addition I would have found the Death Penalty very humane in this case. I have no idea why everyone wants her to live and suffer over a quick death on the gurney yet wants Rusty put out and hung to dry.

And one more thing:

When I mentioned to someone that Rusty works for NASA the reply was, " No wonder Nasa keeps messing up things."

In addition it has been reported that his NASA healthcare plan was maxed on Andrea's coverage of her mental condition. If that is true then I have no problem with the responsible HMO's being sued. This means this can happen again to someone else who has no more coverage left to deal with pychosis.

By making everything coverable including viagra, sex changes ect...no wonder there was no money left to treat her properly.

Well Andrea is getting what she deserves. The husband is scum also. He knew she had a problem, continued to have more children, then ignored the warning signed and had her home schooling the kids.

He was criminally neglegent in the death of his kids. THis however doesn't lessen her guilt one iota. He had an obligation to protect his wife and kids, he blew it big time.

One doesn't have to go to DU to see the spin... some of what this author predicts can be found right here on FR.

Yep! sure can. And it has gone beyond prediction. More like a prophecy fullfilled. People can't stand to think of a mother doing such a thing so it has to be the mans fault.

Everyone is an expert about what happened. I turned off Bill O'Reilly last night because he was hysterical. I love listening to talk radio but have turned it off because of the same reason.

First, I am as strong a death penalty advocate as there is anywhere. But as much as this whole thing disgusts me, I think life is fair. Let her think about what she has done for the next 40 years. Oddly, my wife is against the death penalty, and wanted her to fry.

Anyway, I think he is just as guilty. He knew what she is capable of, he left her alone with the kids. Remember when he got the call that she "did it?" He knew "it" was to kill one, and asked which one. The article above is bovine feces, except for the fact that he is also guilty.

"My husband says "you know" quite frequently, I wouldn't consider that a character flaw."

It's habit. Nothing more.

Maybe he should have said " Ya see what I'm saying?" This seems to be the latest phrase which means.. "you know?" or "you know."

"Soon after that, it will be accepted conventional wisdom that Russell Yates is ultimately to blame for the choice his wife made. By extension, this will apply to all husbands.

It already does. It is straight from the pages of NOW and people are buying right into it. Especially if the man is white.

Yes, but he continually preached that his wife was insane - yet he entrusted the care of his children to her..... Wouldn't that make him negligent?

I know. He knew what was going on and he tried to get help but how much help did he really try to get and how hard did he push for help?

I don't know what to make of this guy. He doesn't seem to be reacting the way I think most people would. He doesn't seem capable of taking serious situations seriously.

He keeps saying, "I tried to get my wife help" but in my gut, I just don't believe he understood what was going on. Even now, he still seems oddly detached from the events. He knows they happened (like he knew his wife was mad) but he doesn't seem to act normally.

He is a very odd fellow. There is a great deal of mental detachement and I think that detachment was there long before his wife did what she did.

The closest thing I can come to discribe this guy is that perhaps he autistic. He don't seem to experience normal emotions.

I'm not shifting blame; there are two kinds of blame here. Andrea murdered those children and was found guilty as she should have been. But Russell Yates has a large burden of blame to shoulder also.

Russell ignored medical advice about having more children. Russell knew that Andrea couldn't be left alone with the children and that was why his mother was always at the house. He lived in squalid conditions with a filthy, withdrawn wife who had attempted suicide. He cut her off from her family. He didn't help with the children. He overburdened this woman and knew what had happened when she called him with the news that day of the murders. No, he isn't guilty of murder, but he is guilty of child endangerment.

He is also monumentally selfish and grasping as his many television appearances reveal. He intends to sue and he blames everyone but himself, the person closest to the situation, for the deaths of the five innocent children.

Now if the guy would recover from John McCain disease, and get off the television--NOW!

For months, he hasn't been able to utter a word, because of the judges gag order. He is probably talking now because for the first time in 9 months he can.

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.