Article
What Happened to Regina McKnight?
By Lynn Paltrow

Often when prosecutors are considering precedent-setting cases they choose a test case in which there will be little public sympathy or support for the defendant. This was the case in South Carolina when prosecutors chose to blame Regina McKnight for the death of her newborn. McKnight was an indigent African-American woman with numerous health problems, limited education, and a drug problem that began after her mother was killed in a hit and run accident. McKnight went to her local hospital in 1999 and experienced a stillbirth. As in a significant percentage of stillbirths, there was no obvious cause for the pregnancy loss.

Instead of counseling McKnight, or offering to find her the medical and drug treatment she desperately needed, the focus almost immediately turned to gathering evidence against her. Hospital staff and the state knew that she had a drug problem. And with a positive test for metabolites of cocaine in hand, the state concluded that her pregnancy loss should be treated as a case of homicide and that her drug use would be identified as the cause of the stillbirth.

<snip>

Despite the lack of evidence, the judge permitted the case to go to the jury which deliberated for less than 15 minutes before returning a guilty verdict on May 16, 2001. McKnight became the first woman in America to be convicted of homicide by child abuse based on her behavior during pregnancy. She was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment, with the final eight years suspended.

<snip>

Moreover, the decision makes women the guarantors of a pregnancy’s outcome. In rejecting the McKnight’s arguments, the court noted that the statute’s definition of harm as, "inflicting or allowing to be inflicted on the child physical injury" and, "failing to supply the child with adequate health care" could both “clearly be applied to an unborn child.” Neither of these provisions is limited to illegal drug use. The pregnant woman who “allows” herself to battered, or the woman who misses prenatal care appointments are both now vulnerable to prosecution for murder should something go wrong in their pregnancy.



Wow folks. I'm shocked and awed.

Questions for debate:

Should this woman be in jail?

Should a pregnant woman's behavior during pregnancy even be allowed to bring her to trial for a "murder"?
If so, then should the state launch an investigation into every miscarriage and administer monthly pregnancy tests to women to ensure that no one is "killed"?

Should this woman be in jail?

No.


Should a pregnant woman's behavior during pregnancy even be allowed to bring her to trial for a "murder"?

Yes, but it should only be on the basis of a clear intent to kill the baby. Simply convicting a woman on the basis of her being an addicted drug user is to ignore the nature of drug addiction and to treat drug abusers as criminals. This is a hypocritical attitude since all human beings have failings, but only women can be prosecuted for this particular failing.

This woman appears to have been in need of help, but instead was treated like a murderer.

On top of everything I think this case demonstrates the hysteria which surrounds the rights of unborn children in our modern age. Its amazing that western society has such concerns for the unborn when it so obviously does not care for those who are already born. Just why does the rights of a fetus come before the rights of the mother or any living children which she may have?


If so, then should the state launch an investigation into every miscarriage and administer monthly pregnancy tests to women to ensure that no one is "killed"?

No. But I do think that the hospital/ clinic staff should be aware of what happens and report any one they suspect of having performed an illegal abortion.

No. She wasn't taking care of herself, let alone her pregnancy. The system failed her, and rather than acknowledging that, the state decided to punish her. They should have helped her. I know, some will object that they do not pay tax money to support a welfare state, yada yada, but it would have been the decent thing to do.

I don't know how they can make it stick when abortion is legal. I would think "manslaughter" would be more appropriate, if charges were to be brought. But the reason for laws such as these should be to prevent crimes, first and foremost. Who does it help prosecuting drug addicts? Addiction means that the person's behavior is out of control to begin with--does anybody believe that an addict can suddenly gain control of her/his life without help?
Aren't there three elements required to prove murder: means, motive and opportunity? I do not see motive here, and opportunity? Could she afford proper health care even if she had somehow found within herself the resolve to do so? I doubt it.

That would take a humongous amount of money and forfeiture of an individual's right to privacy. Why don't we invest the money positively by instituting universal health coverage, rather than take a police state measure reminiscent of Nicolai Ceaucescu?

Only if intent can be proved. If she purposely took drugs to force a miscarraige, then yes. At the same time, if it was her primary purpose to get high since she has an addiction, and the secondary result was that the fetus was harmed, then no. The difference between the two can easily be discerned. There would be witnesses who could testify of intent, journals/diaries written, as well as internet listings and things like that. It really wouldn't be that complicated to figure out. Our legal system does not severely punish people who have addictions or who are mentally incapable of understanding what they've done. Why we would start doing so now is somewhat troubling to me.

If the morning-after pill and RU486 are legal, how can doing drugs to rid yourself of a baby not be legal? I guess if the drugs are illegal, you might be breaking the law in that regard, but if it's not illegal to take the abortion pill, aborting a baby with cocaine also cannot be illegal. What difference does it make what drug is used? I understand cocaine is illegal - she might legally be liable under a drug charge, but not a murder charge.

And quitting drugs is not as simple as many of you think. If this person got pregnant, and she already had a drug dependency, it's a little naive of most of you to think she can just up and quit on her own simply because she is pregnant. Especially without the options that are provided to those of us with health care and such.

In the case of a drug addict, abortion is a very humane choice. Holding such a person in criminal negligence for making a humane, wise choice is holier-than-thou, unrealistic, and cruel.

Should this woman be in jail?

No, based on how the article reads it sounds like the prosecution did not present sufficient evidence to make their case against this woman. The jury went out and convicted her on their own personal morals, emotions, what have you -- not any law on the books. The judge should have recognized this and threw the jury verdict out.

Should a pregnant woman's behavior during pregnancy even be allowed to bring her to trial for a "murder"?

It depends on if the state in question has the fetal homicide law in place I suppose. However I disagree with this law completely because in some respects it is an end run around the abortion decision by the Supreme Court.

The law may be well intentioned, but as this case proves it can be abused in practice.

Should this woman be in jail?
I agree that it depends on the motive, because if a man kills a pregnant woman, they are charged with the death of the infant as well. Of course I am personally against abortion as well, but that is a separate debate.


From article:


From Perspective


I think it is disturbing that everyone is blaming the hospital for not giving this person treatment for her addiction. This woman was pregnant for X amount of months, she knew she had a problem and the article gave no reference to her asking for help. Your asking hospitals to be accountable for treatment that the patient did not ask for, and not the patient for using drugs. I am sure if she wanted to quit they would have helped her during the pregnancy and maybe even afterwards. Should we go around and save every pot smoker?

Rev_DelFuego



Who said anything about saving people? Its one thing to advocate being strict against people for drug use, but its quite another to throw an addict into prison for murder because of a miscarriage!

It seems to me that on the basis that a court room decision makes a legal precedent that this jury used this trial as a way to enforce their own religous perspectives in to the law and they burned this woman on the stake of the law as a sacrifice to their morality.

Should this woman be in jail?
Should a pregnant woman's behavior during pregnancy even be allowed to bring her to trial for a "murder"?
Not at all. As mentioned before abortion is legal so regardless of intent there is no murder taking place by the woman's behavior resulting in what is essentially a miscarriage. While a different situation, I don't feel it would be too far a stretch to imagine a similar group of persons prosecuting women who took the risk of being pregnant in spite of pre-existing health conditions that might prevent pregnancy from bearing fruition. Likewise for women engaged in sports or occupations which might influence a pregnancy whether intent is present or not.

If so, then should the state launch an investigation into every miscarriage and administer monthly pregnancy tests to women to ensure that no one is "killed"?
While I'd be mildly surprised to have anybody suggest this woman's imprisonment is justified, I would be absolutely astonished at the serious suggestion of such investigations. The obstacles to reaching a definitive cause are so numerous and the amount of money and man power that would be necessary obscene.

Regina McKnight is not a saint, but she is never the less a victim of persons whose personal moral codes were offended by the circumstances of her life and pregnancy, and who decided to teach Regina a lesson in virtue. I can see no legal justification in her punishment and hope the the light of reason shines into her case sooner rather than later.

Everyone is not holding the hospital accountable.

If the state was going to bust this woman, it should have been for using an illegal substance, and then the judge could have had her placed in rehab. That might have helped her unborn child at the time.

Suggesting that a drug addict could have summoned the moral and physical fortitude to break her addiction without help is ridiculous. And as far as an addict seeking treatment--the primary fear of an addict is to be cut off from the supply of the drug, so that wasn't likely to happen.

This woman was negligent toward her unborn child, yes, but she was in no shape to take care of herself and surely her behavior, though irresponsible, was because she was simply out of control of her life. There is nothing to suggest that her behavior was to intentionally harm her child.

Trying her for murder is simply grandstanding, and shameful grandstanding at that. It will not serve as a deterrent to drug addicts or encourage them to get prenatal care if they happen to be pregnant.

A similar case of using a failed pregnancy to force through a precedent has just been thwarted in Europe.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3876311.stm



This Vietnamese woman had a French doctor thrown on prison for six months and fined ten thousand francs due to his having made a simple mistake which in essence was her own fault.

As in the US case, it is the malignant way by which the anti abortionists act which demonstrates their lack of empathy for those people involved in these cases. They would rather have people's lives broken and ruined than see a pregnancy terminated. They put their own morality before the lives of other people.

That was a real "whoops," wasn't it?

Yeah, we're all an unfeeling bunch of moralists, right? Just like abortionists are all a bunch of callous murderers. But wait--could it be that painting an entire group with such broad brush strokes is inaccurate? I certainly hope so.

I hope you're not trying to paint me with that broad brush called "they," moif. If you are, please re-read my posts.

My mother had a similar situation. Lost a child because of a doctor's mistake. Couldn't prosecute the doctor because the fetus doesnt have a right to life.

Moif i find that last post quite disturbing because it makes it seem you are under the assumption your views are right and everyone else is wrong. I have a question, if a doctor was doing surgery on you and made a mistake... wouldn't he be subject to prosecution? The doctor made a mistake and ended a developing life. Maybe you do not see it as a life but the mother did and saw it as the loss of a human being. I can't believe you said that these people put their own morality before the lives of other people. What about the possible life of their child? The life and time they will never spend together because of a mistake? It would be just the same as if the baby was born and the doctor dropped the baby on the floor breaking its neck.

Depends on whether or not the Doctor's actions were found to be criminally negligent. We usually define criminal negligence in terms of a state of mind in the defendant which is willfully careless, inattentive, neglectful, or reckless, coupled with the physical act of severe injury or death to the other person.

Potential civil liability for the non-intentional tort aspect of the injury would be a seperate matter.

I believe Azure-Citizen is correct in suggesting the doctor would likely be guilty of negligence, or perhaps malpractice. I don't believe there would be a trial for murder and don't believe there should considering the legality of abortion and the circumstances. Such a situation is also different from dropping a fully birthed and viable infant on the floor as the possibility for miscarriage and/or stillbirth still applies to those embryos and fetuses still residing in the womb. Such cannot be said about viable infants already birthed whom we know to be a functioning new individual.

From PE

What is ridiculous is to assume that the judge knew she was on drugs, prior to her giving birth to a dead fetus and holding him accountable for not putting her into rehab. Like I pointed out earlier by the time we catch these addicts it is too late, like this case. They may fear being cut off from their supply, but ask any drug user would you like to quit. The majority of them would say yes. If you think it is hard to quit a drug use while having a baby, look at all the strong women who quit smoking to give birth.


From ABS:


I think we are going to end up on disagreeing on "When we become Human." From the CSM:



This means she was 8.5 months pregnent, to put that into perspective me and my twin bro were born at 8 months so to me that was a viable fetus. This whole situation is ridicoulus. So far we have
If a woman accidently kills a fetus its murder
If a doctor accidently kills a fetus its ok
If they get together and kill the fetus its an "abortion"
If a man kills a woman with a fetus its a double murder

No one is suggesting that the judge is accountable. We are saying that if she is prosecuted for anything, the only prosecuting that is legally viable in this situation is her illegal drug use. There is nothing else in this circumstance that is criminal. That's what we're saying - note the red emphasis.


The point to be made here is that let's say hypothetically I'm a drug addict and I find out that I'm pregnant. I go to counselling for 5 months trying to get clean, and at the end of 5 months, I get out and the first week I fall back into the habit - I didn't realize how hard this was going to be. The method they used in rehab didn't work for me, I'll have to try something else. At this point, my baby is 6 or more months in gestation. I realize at 7 months pregnant that no matter what, my child will either be born defective, or will die before he/she is born. Even though I tried to quit the drugs. (And this isn't an uncommon story - it often takes many many tries to quit the hard drugs) Rather than subject my child to any more suffering, I decide I want to have an abortion -but wait! It's too late, the conservatives will put me and my doctor in jail if I try to have a 3rd trimester abortion, so my only option is to keep with the drug use and hope that my baby is still born. Or, give birth to a baby with so many health defects that I can't afford the medical costs, and will have to give up for adoption or become even more of a burden on welfare. Just because there exists a few people who can quit cold turkey doesn't eliminate the majority who can't. Basically society is forcing this woman into a corner - don't be surprised at what a cornered animal is capable of.


NO, it isn't - women do it all the time and don't get thrown in jail for murder. Neither should they. If this country won't let a mother make the decisions about her body, she'll always have to resort to killing a baby "accidentally" and hope that the evidence that it was intentional never comes to light. It's been that way for thousands of years.


Of course it isn't - and if intent can be proven, that doctor can be charged with murder - if no intent, malpractice or manslaughter. Becuase it isn't his choice what happens to that woman's body. And it shouldn't be. The woman is the only one who should have a say in what goes on in her body.

As brought up from the very start of this debate in the opening article, it was never shown in court that the stillbirth was the result of cocain usage. Not only did the prosecution fail to make this connection in pursuing the conviction of McKnight, but "the South Carolina Medical Association joined by other local and national health organizations filed a brief that carefully evaluated the evidence in the case. This brief concluded that not only was there no evidence that cocaine caused the stillbirth, but that as a matter of science there was little evidence that cocaine itself could even theoretically have been the cause of this kind of stillbirth." (SOURCE)

It's a case not unlike those where people attempt to prosecute a band or the makers of video games because somebody listened to or engaged in them prior to committing some illegal act. While cocaine is certainly neither healthy for the person ingesting it or a fetus within that person, consumption of cocaine or any other unhealthy substance does not mean consumption is the reason for either miscarriage or stillbirth. Indeed, the medical experts in this case didn't see consumption of illegal drugs as the cause at all.

Also from the Christian Science Monitor:
Attempt to deter women from engaging in risky behavior? I wonder what limits we might be able to impose on women in this crusade. Perhaps pregnant women will be banned from bars and restaurants serving liquor or with smoking areas. Maybe we'll be able to regulate their diet, workout routines and sleeping habits. Pregnancy should not be a means by which any person can inhibit the rights of a woman by threatening prosecution should that pregnancy later fail to produce.

"I saw her standing right next to his husband while he smoked two cigarettes in the first month...TWO cigarettes!"
"I told her she shouldn't have lifted those boxes over her head..."
"Did you see the way she ate? It's no wonder..."

As I've mentioned before elsewhere on the site in other debates regarding such issues, pregnancy is a fragile thing. There are so many factors that could be responsible for miscarriages and stillbirths that there's no way a single state or all fifty could ever hope to investigate and prosecute women for risky behavior. There are so many factors that I would suggest it terribly unreasonable to think we can expect women to avoid every potential danger to pregnancy without stripping them of almost all their rights and privileges... to their own bodies no less.

And what is this about Regina McKnight having an IQ of 72? So not only was there no medical evidence to suggest cocaine was the cause of the stillbirth -- and numerous medical authorities declaring it wasn't -- but we are talking about a woman two points away from what is recognized as mental retardation. The power of drugs over an addict aside, her peers are supposed to expect a woman one shake away from being retarded to know and behave better while pregnant? In that there seems to me a clear reason to pursue manslaughter rather than murder, and I see no reason to pursue even that in light of the medical expertise offered in the case.

Finally, one more thing from the Christian Science Monitor:
Beyond the injustice of being convicted of murder while lacking the mental capacity to know much better, and no evidence that her drug use was responsible for the stillbirth, a woman who intentionally terminates her pregnancy after the viability recognized by law faces a maximum of 2 years in prison contrasted with the 20-Life Regina McKnight faced (receiving 12).

South Carolina is a very conservative state, and, like Texas, it is not known for providing adequate counsel for impoverished defendants.

Everything was apparently working against Ms. McKnight: her financial circumstances, her IQ, her addiction, her pregnancy and subsequent stillbirth. I will leave the supposition of her race being a negative factor for others to ponder.

This judgment does not appear to be just on any level. And you're right, Abs, it is one slippery slope when it comes to proscribing certain habits and activities on the basis of a woman being pregnant.

Does anybody know if the ACLU plans to get involved to appeal this conviction and excessively harsh sentence?

Paladin Elspeth



I apologize. I should have included the word 'activists' in my sentence. It was not my intention to tar all anti abortionists with the same brush, only those who have gone out of their way to use violent or aggressive means to further their own personal morality onto other people's lives.

I was not directing my comment towards you or any one else here in particular.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


lederuvdapac



I am indeed under that impression. Why else would I express my opinion if I did not believe it to be right?




No. It is human to err, and providing the doctor was not drunk, or criminally negligent then I do not see that I should be allowed to punish some one else because they made an honest mistake, especially not some one who was trying to help me.




I do see it as a life, in that it was not dead, there fore it was alive. But at some point we must recognise that a fetus is still a part of the mothers body and not a seperate entity.




What about the possible life of a child, or in this case a fetus? Why should this possible life be more important than the actual life of the parents or any other children they might already have.

For my part I do not like the idea of an abortion. I would never advocate it except under exceptional circumstances.

But I would never put my morality before that of a pregnant woman. It is her body and her moral decision. I have no right what so ever to intervene either on behalf of my own moral values, or the rights of her 'possible' child.

1. Apparently
2. No, not necessarily, it is a potential malpractice case
3. No. Abortion is only legal up until the 12th week, except in circumstances of health (I guess now, death) risk to the mother.
4. Yes, as it is illegal to have an abortion after the 12th week, I think that if another person kills a heavily pregnant woman (8 and a half months along), it should be a double murder case. Not during the first trimester, for which I have never heard of a double murder case. Has anyone? Considering the stink everyone made about the Lacy case, I would be willing to place a substantial bet the answer is no.

Should this woman be in jail? Yes, but the sentence was much too harsh in this case. Reckless endangerment would have been a more appropriate charge.

Should a pregnant woman's behavior during pregnancy even be allowed to bring her to trial for a "murder"? No, but I do think that the woman has a responsibility to not take cocaine or crack while pregnant.

If so, then should the state launch an investigation into every miscarriage and administer monthly pregnancy tests to women to ensure that no one is "killed"? That's ridiculous. It is perfectly reasonable to hold basic expectations for the pregnant not to take crack, cocaine, or slug down a pint of bourbon a day. If a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy during the first trimester, she should be able to. After that, she holds a responsibility to not pollute herself egregiously.

Apparently, the case made it all the way to the South Carolina Supreme Court, where the conviction was upheld as being sufficient in a narrow 3-2 vote despite the appeals to medicine presented by a number of professional medical organizations including the American Public Health Association, American Psychiatric Association, and a number of South Carolina medical associations. The ACLU was involved in helping her petition the US Supreme Court but the writ was denied and the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, allowing the decision of the South Carolina Supreme Court to stand. It is looking like Regina Knight will serve all 12 years in prison.

As has been previously suggested in this thread, I am appalled at the status of South Carolina's law that a woman who deliberately and intentionally kills her own child after reaching viability in the third trimester faces a maximum of 2 years in prison, while a woman in Knight's situation can receive 20 years for unintentionally killing the same child. To top it off, on balance most of the medical experts seem to agree that there is no conclusive evidence cocaine usage caused the stillbirth; one of the amicus curiae briefs filed on her behalf cited a statistic that over 500 women in South Carolina experience stillbirths each year, and most of the time modern medicine can't even determine the cause.

Our justice system is not infallible. We can't expect that. But this case truly violates our sense of fairness.