Indiana court to hear woman’s appeal of feticide conviction

This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.

FILE - In this March 30, 2015 file photo, Purvi Patel is taken into custody after being sentenced to 20 years in prison for feticide and neglect of a dependent on at the St. Joseph County Courthouse in South Bend, Ind. Attorneys for Patel will urge the Indiana Court of Appeals on Monday, May 23, 2016 to reverse her 2015 convictions on charges of feticide and neglect of a dependent resulting in death. The state's attorney general's office will defend the northern Indiana jury's decision. (Robert Franklin/South Bend Tribune via AP) MANDATORY CREDIT

INDIANAPOLIS (May 21, 2016) — Attorneys for an Indiana woman found guilty of killing the premature infant she delivered after ingesting abortion-inducing drugs will soon ask an appeals court to throw out the convictions that led to her 20-year prison sentence.

At issue is Indiana’s feticide statute, which the defense says was “passed to protect pregnant women from violence” that could harm their developing fetus, not to prosecute women for their own abortions. The state says that law “is not limited to third-party actors” and can apply to pregnant women.

Attorneys for 35-year-old Purvi Patel will urge the Indiana Court of Appeals on Monday to reverse her 2015 convictions on charges of feticide and neglect of a dependent resulting in death. The state’s attorney general’s office will defend the northern Indiana jury’s decision.

Patel, of Granger, was arrested in July 2013 after she sought treatment at a local hospital for profuse bleeding after delivering a 1½-pound infant boy and putting his body in a trash bin behind her family’s restaurant. Court records show Patel purchased abortion-inducing drugs online through a pharmacy in Hong Kong, took those drugs and delivered a premature baby in her home bathroom.

Patel lived with her parents and grandparents and feared that her family would discover she had been impregnated by a married man she was involved with, court documents state.

Patel’s attorneys contend her convictions are not supported by the evidence and the laws prosecutors used don’t apply to her alleged actions in the child’s premature delivery.

Two dozen women’s advocacy groups, as well as Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union, all have filed friend-of-the-court briefs siding with Patel.

At least 38 states have fetal homicide laws, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. But the Patel case was the first time a state feticide law has been used against a woman specifically because of “an alleged self-induced abortion,” said Jill E. Adams, executive director of the abortion rights advocacy group Center on Reproductive Rights and Justice.

“Prosecutors have been very creative and very egregious, stretching far beyond the letter of the law and even the legislative intent behind the law,” she said of efforts by prosecutors in some states to use a variety of laws to criminalize self-induced abortions.

Becky Rogness, a spokeswoman for the anti-abortion group Indiana Right to Life, declined to comment on the Patel case.

Attorneys for the state argue that Patel’s infant was just beyond the threshold of viability, and had taken at least one breath before dying. The state’s brief also argues that Patel “has not met her heavy burden to prove that Indiana’s feticide statute constitutes an undue burden on the right to obtain an abortion.”

Bryan Corbin, a spokesman for Indiana’s attorney general’s office, said that in all appeals the “defendant has the burden of proof on appeal.”

One of Patel’s attorneys, Stanford University law professor Lawrence C. Marshall, declined to comment, saying Patel’s “position is contained in the briefs and the arguments that will be delivered Monday.”

Patel’s appeal also contends she should not have been convicted of neglect, arguing prosecutors failed to prove she knew she had delivered a live baby or that she could have done anything to save its life. It argues that summoning medical help would have been “futile,” citing a forensic pathologist’s testimony that the infant likely would have died within about a minute.

In its brief, the state argues that prosecutors were “not required to prove that an attempt to obtain medical care would have saved the baby’s life, only that Defendant placed her baby in appreciable danger by not obtaining medical care for him.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s