Search This Blog

Wednesday, April 8, 2015


By Carol Downer

In our rush to support Purvi Patel, who was sentenced to 20 years in prison on April 6, 2015 by an Indiana Judge on the charges of child neglect and feticide (inducing her own abortion) by adopting Patel’s claim that she miscarried, we risk implying that if it were a self-induced abortion, we might not support her.

The prosecution introduced evidence that Patel had told a friend about ordering pills to induce an abortion and about taking the medication, and had then texted her to say, “just lost the baby”.

We have seen abortion rights curtailed in recent years.  The desperation of females who have denied a way to solve their problem of unwanted pregnancy and the availability of abortion-inducing pills, and female’s dependence on medical help if complications of miscarriage or induced abortion will continue to produce these horrific outcomes.  We’d better think this through and take a position that doesn’t embroil us in factual evidentiary disputes or place us in the position of accepting the legitimacy of the State punishing a female for trying to control her own body.

Given the evidence that Patel induced an abortion, many of her supporters have shifted to the question of whether the fetus was viable and if so, whether it was a stillborn.  Viability is not determined by whether a particular fetus of a certain age will live, it is determined by the statistical probability that it will live, based on whether any fetuses born at that stage of development who were cared for in a well-equipped neo-natal unit have lived.  Whether the defense’s estimate of the fetus’ age was correct or the prosecutor’s estimate of a later fetal age, the fetus was very premature and its chances of survival under the best conditions were problematic.  

But why are feminists basing our support on whether the fetus was viable?  And, why are we challenging the tests for whether the fetus managed to take a breath?  Don’t we support Patel in her right to rid herself of an unwanted fetus.  It is her body, after all, and when a female is forced to maintain a pregnancy, it is reproductive slavery.  Just because the Supreme Court decided that there was a point during pregnancy when the fetus’ rights trumped the female’s rights, why do we accept that?  Of course, her attorney should and must present every defense, but unless we agree that the State has the right to control our reproductive organs under some circumstances, we must uphold Patel whether she had a miscarriage or expelled a premature fetus.

If the authorities pay attention to our Petitions, it will be because they see how outraged the females of America are at this prosecution and sentence and because they feel compelled to respect the national outcry.  They will not be swayed by the fact that we’ve believed the defense’s version of the facts, or that we’ve presented a legal argument.

As a female and as a feminist, I support Patel unequivocally.  FREE PURVI PATEL!