Keen to learn more about inclusive workplaces? Want to be inclusive of the LGBTQ+ community? Download our special report with Randstad India on making Inclusion without Exception happen
Charges of 'foeticide' in the Purvi Patel case have been dropped by the Indiana court. Read on to know why this case is important.
Charges of ‘foeticide’ in the Purvi Patel case have been dropped by the Indiana court. Read on to know why this case is important.
The right to abortion presents a unique challenge. On one hand, lies the hallmark of true empowerment, in the form of the freedom of choice. On the other hand, as some may choose to interpret the situation, the rider on the freedom of choice kicks in – to the effect that the choice of one must not harm another.
In its nuanced existence, abortion can throw up a lot of moral and legal challenges – such as, aborting a foetus because it is a girl is an outright violation of gender justice, while aborting a foetus because a full-term delivery can affect the health of the mother and child is not a violation for practical reasons. The other end of the spectrum holds ‘miscarriages’ within – where natural causes result in the death of a foetus or the abortion of a pregnancy.
For Purvi Patel, 33, citizen of Indiana, USA, the debate got as real as it could. Having become pregnant after an affair with a co-worker, Purvi was around 23-24 weeks pregnant. Factually, Purvi arrived at the St. Joseph Hospital in Mishawka, Indiana, bleeding heavily, seeking medical intervention.
She initially denied the pregnancy, and then admitted that she gave birth to a stillborn foetus which she had thrown in the dumpster. According to Purvi, she had given birth to a stillborn child who she had thrown in the dumpster, panicking.
According to the prosecution, she had given birth to a live foetus; they also alleged that she had ordered abortion-inducing medication online in a bid to terminate her pregnancy, and thus charged her with foeticide and neglect earlier. However, a toxicology report failed to find evidence of any drugs in her system.
Prior to the court’s current decision to release Purvi, she was sentenced to 20 years in prison, on charges of foeticide. She received 30 years on the felony neglect charge, of which ten were suspended, and a six-year sentence for foeticide which was to be served concurrently. Purvi is effectively the second of only two women who would have been sentenced under the abortion laws in the US, the other also being an Asian woman.
In making a blanket conviction of this sort, there was a clear disregard for a lot of factors such as Purvi’s personal choice not to disclose the pregnancy, the right Purvi had prior to the pregnancy to choose to have or not to have the baby, or the cultural factors that surrounded her choice to remain silent about her pregnancy, or to even deny it at one point.
Furthermore, the conviction was in effect, nothing short of a punishment for having a miscarriage, and then seeking out medical assistance for it. This could have affected the access to medical needs for several other women, who may not approach a healthcare provider out of fear of prosecution for no wrongdoing.
Bei Bei Shuai, a Chinese American-woman, was imprisoned for one year on the ground of foeticide, but her charges were dropped on a plea-bargaining deal. She allegedly suffered from depression and attempted suicide while pregnant, resulting in the foetus’ death. In both cases, medical support and psycho-social counselling were the need of the hour, but were not given – instead, the women were prosecuted for foeticide.
Across jurisdictions, the United States included, the most commonly accepted rule when it comes to criminal prosecutions, is that the accused should be proved guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. So much as a shadow of doubt is enough to shift the tectonic plates in a criminal case.
The United States has been known to follow the presumption of innocence and looks at it as a legal right for the accused, as well. Purely on principle, built on the fact that there has been no overwhelming concrete evidence that can prove Purvi’s guilt, the Indiana court of Appeals decision to vacate Purvi Patel’s foeticide conviction must be applauded.
Image Source: Youtube
Women's Web is an open platform that publishes a diversity of views, individual posts do not necessarily represent the platform's views and opinions at all times.
Stay updated with our Weekly Newsletter or Daily Summary - or both!
If you want to get back to work after a break, here’s the ultimate guide to return to work programs in India from tech, finance or health sectors - for women just like you!
Last week, I was having a conversation with a friend related to personal financial planning and she shared how she had had fleeting thoughts about joining work but she was apprehensive to take the plunge. She was unaware of return to work programs available in India.
She had taken a 3-year long career break due to child care and the disconnect from the job arena that she spoke about is something several women in the same situation will relate to.
More often than not, women take a break from their careers to devote time to their kids because we still do not have a strong eco-system in place that can support new mothers, even though things are gradually changing on this front.
No law in the country recognises enabling the rapist to walk free after marrying the survivor. However, in reality, it is something that families and communities often push for.
In the same week where the Delhi High Court on Wednesday, 11 May, saw a split decision on the constitutionality of the marital rape exception, another equally reactionary decision was handed by a divisional bench of the Supreme Court when they set aside the conviction and sentence of a man who had repeatedly raped his 14 year old niece
The facts of the case are simple. The accused, K Dhandapani, enticed his 14 year old niece with the promise of marriage and raped her several times. The family came to know of the offence when the girl became pregnant, and a case was lodged against him under the Protection of Child from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. After trying his case, in 2018, the Sessions Court found him guilty on all three counts, and convicted him and sentenced him to 10 years rigorous imprisonment. The accused appealed to the Madras High Court which upheld the conviction and the sentence in 2019.
The girl gave birth in 2017, before the case came up in court. Despite the pending case against him, he continued to have sexual relations with the girl, and she gave birth to her second child at the age of 17.