Police are investigating the remains of four tiny humans found dead at the home of a Maryland woman yesterday. None of the bodies are said to have been full term, which means they must have died before birth or shortly after a premature birth. Exact cause of death is still uncertain, but the mother, Christy Freeman, is being held on first-degree murder and other charges in the most recent death, a baby boy whose body was found wrapped in a towel under her bathroom sink. It is believed that she caused the infant’s death because of “something she said” in an interview with authorities. According to Vance Row, spokesman for the Ocean City police, “she could have taken an action that could have caused her to deliver a stillborn baby.” Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t that also called a late-term abortion?

Well, that’s exactly what it is. So I found it very interesting that she was being charged because of a 2005 law which establishes that a prosecution may be instituted for murder, manslaughter, or unlawful homicide under certain conditions for an act or failure to act that causes the death of a viable fetus. I was under the impression that those so called “fetal homicide” laws existed primarily for unborn children that died as the result of an assault on the mother. Apparently I was correct there as well for the Maryland law is supposed to contain a paragraph exempting, “an act or failure to act of a pregnant woman with regard to her own fetus.” If that is true and the mother did, indeed cause the death of her son prior to his birth, this murder charge will most likely not stick.

So, what is my point on all of this? I am not advocating arresting and charging women for having abortions (Mark Pickup has a post on that matter, the sentiments of which I agree whole heartedly). But this example is where the “fetal homicide” laws get a little fuzzy for me. On the one hand we acknowledge the person hood of a child developing in the womb in certain situations and at the same time say that those rights don’t apply if the child is unwanted by its own mother. I understand that it is ultimately because of Roe v. Wade (and Doe v. Bolton) that these exemptions must be put in place, otherwise the law could and would be challenged to be unconstitutional, but, legally, the whole thing gets a bit confusing in these situations, doesn’t it? Unborn life is protected here, but not there. And wouldn’t these investigators get a big surprise if they sent cadaver dogs to abortion clinics?

On the issue of prosecuting women for procuring abortions, it’s not something I’ve thought a lot about. But it seems that many would consider that, too, to be a bit tricky in a situation where abortion is illegal. Pickup addresses the instance of woman procuring abortions from another source, but what if she performs the “procedure” on her own and of her own free will? He is right, and the pro-life movement knows that women are just as much a victim as the baby – I love the slogan “Abortion: One Dead, One Wounded” – often forced into the decision by another party (a boyfriend or parent). Of course we will always have pregnancy centers open to help women find counseling and other resources to help in a crisis pregnancy situation. But if abortion is illegal, the child is acknowledged as an equal person under the law and the mother kills her unborn child on her own, what then? We prosecute women like Susan Smith and Andrea Yates. Would this be different? If so, what should we do?

Regarding Freeman, however, investigations are underway into bruises found on her body, which could indicate domestic violence and a possible motive for the alleged self-induced abortion(s) – or proof that they were not self induced after all.