An Indiana woman convicted of feticide and child neglect is appealing the court's sentence of 20 years in prison. Amy Gastelum is a journalist who has followed the story since Purvi Patel's arrest shortly after her premature child's death in 2013:
What happened leading up to Patel's arrest?
Text messages from her phone show Patel had an unintended pregnancy that she was trying to hide from her strict Hindu parents. She did not know how far along her pregnancy was when she took abortion drugs she bought from an online pharmacy based in Hong Kong. Presumably, these drugs caused her to lose her pregnancy and she delivered an extremely preterm fetus alone in her home. When her bleeding didn't stop she went to the hospital. Once there, she told doctors she miscarried but they believed she may have given birth to a live baby so they called the police.
Police found the body of the one and a half pound extreme preemie where she told them she disposed of it. Pathologists offered opinions on the gestational age of the baby and whether it was alive at birth. The jury decided it did take a breath at birth so Patel was charged with feticide for taking the abortion drugs, and neglect resulting in the death of a dependent as well.
Why has this case received so much nationwide attention?
The only other woman to be charged with feticide in Indiana for the outcome of her pregnancy was also a woman of color.
This is the first time in the nation a woman has been convicted using a feticide statute for ending her own pregnancy. That sets legal precedent in Indiana, and possibly other states. Reproductive rights groups and the medical community say prosecuting women for outcomes of their own pregnancies could make some pregnant women avoid seeking care during pregnancy for fear of prosecution if they use illicit drugs or other behaviors that could harm their pregnancies.
The only other woman to be charged with feticide in Indiana for the outcome of her pregnancy was also a woman of color: Bei Bei Shuai, a Chinese immigrant. So reproductive justice groups in particular have voiced concern about its exclusive application to women of color.
How do the defense and prosecution interpret Indiana's feticide law differently?
The feticide statute was written in 1978 to add punishment to people who harm pregnant women resulting in the death of her fetus. In all cases until now, it has been used to punish third parties, not the pregnant woman herself. Some states have written a specific exemption for pregnant women. Not so in Indiana.
Patel's defense said in her appeal that even though that exclusion hasn't been written into Indiana's law, it doesn't mean that debate about the statute's intention can't still happen. The prosecution argues the feticide conviction is fair because Indiana's feticide law doesn't specifically exempt pregnant women.
The defense is also appealing the child neglect conviction. On what grounds?
They argue there has to be proof that Patel was aware the tiny baby was alive at birth for the child neglect conviction to hold water. They say the baby could have died from respiratory distress or from loss of blood soon after birth and she may not have recognized signs of life. The prosecution says the child neglect conviction stands because Patel didn't seek medical care for her extremely preterm infant.
What happens next?
The court of appeals has 6 months to respond, but they are expected to announce a decision much sooner than that.
