Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
On March 30, a judge in Indiana’s St. Joseph County court sentenced a young Indian-American woman, Purvi Patel, to 41 years for the crimes of feticide and neglect of a dependent. She will serve 20 of the 41 years in prison. Throughout the trial, Patel maintained that she had a miscarriage. Prosecutors however, claimed she attempted to terminate her pregnancy but gave birth to a baby who she then neglected leading to its death. On April 24, a group of crack attorneys who have taken up Patel’s case because it throws up important legal questions, filed a notice of appeal and intend to fight the conviction.
This was not the first time in the U.S. that a woman has been arrested and charged with a crime for terminating her pregnancy, but it is the first time any woman has been convicted of it. Patel’s audacious sentence appears to have energized some Indian-American women’s support groups and activists. They began to raise funds for the Patel family, and to express their support for her. Mainstream groups have been lobbying for dismissing the case and have been behind Patel from the beginning. Patel’s state of mind at this stage is hard to fathom.
Fateful night
On one fateful night in July 2013, Patel, 33, arrived at the Mashakawa, Indiana hospital bleeding from the vagina. She told doctors she had a miscarriage and had disposed of the still born child in a dumpster. She estimated she was two months pregnant. She also said she had tried to revive the baby which was not moving, after miscarrying in the bathroom. “I assumed because the baby was dead there was nothing to do,” court papers quoted her saying. She also told the healthcare personnel and police that she had not told her parents she was pregnant and because she did not want them to know she had gotten rid of the child. The police went to the site of the incident and retrieved the fetus, which after examination was pronounced by forensics to have been born alive. That made it a criminal case and police went over Patel’s cell phone where they found messages pertaining to her attempts to secure abortion pills from abroad and text messages to her friend. According to the left-leaning radio station Democracy Now, Patel’s sentencing came in the midst of a growing conservative opposition to reproductive rights nationwide with at least 235 bills introduced by lawmakers to restrict abortion this year alone.
Day of Judgment
Patel was “stoic” as the devastating sentence was read out March 30. It took the audience in the court, many of them supporters, several minutes to figure out the total number of years. But she knew immediately, according to Sue Ellen Braunlin, co-president of the Indiana Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, a women’s rights group that has stood solidly behind Patel and attended court proceedings. “She was stoic. She turned around and told her parents she loved them and then put her hands behind her back to be escorted,” in handcuffs, Braunlin said. “It was so sad. We were all devastated. We had to go over the sentencing many times to reach the count in years — we were all in shock.” During the pre-trial period and during the trial, Patel was offered counseling by an interfaith chaplain from the IRCRJ.
The Indian-American woman from Indiana has had the support of select mainstream women’s groups like National Advocates for Pregnant Women and IRCRJ. The NAPW submitted an amicus brief during the trial demanding dismissal of the feticide charge but the judge denied that. Lynn Paltrow, executive director of NAPW expressed frustration with the March 30 sentence calling it “extreme” and the whole trial an “unprecedented violation” in an interview with News India Times. “I can’t imagine that anybody sentenced to 41 years will not be devastated,” Paltrow said. “What hasn’t been talked about is she provided support to her grandparents and parents.”
Cultural Bias?
This being the first conviction for feticide, it is ironic that this dubious distinction should be bestowed on a woman with an Indian heritage in light of the history of feticide in India and rumors over use of sex-determination in this country as well. Activists believe that stereotype about India played into this case. Which is why some activists like Braunlin contend cultural bias had a lot to do with how the case was handled.
It was because of this bias, activists contend, that the sex of the child was not revealed for months after the trial began because prosecutors wanted the stereotype to be attached to Patel to sway public opinion. The fact that the fetus was finally revealed as being male only strengthens their belief. “I can think of no other reason than to drum up anti-Purvi Patel sentiment, raise questions about her and her values, and her motives,” asserts Braunlin about the delay in revealing the sex of the child. “It was very, very contrived, unethical, and intentional.” That Patel had an affair with a married man, that she got pregnant, that she did not want her parents to know about not just the pregnancy but the fact of the affair, may be culturally specific issues, even if not specific to Indians or Hindus as prosecutors or the media have wrongly portrayed. More surprising is that the case was being fought in an American court, not in India, and the science used to determine the allegations of feticide and child abandonment was out of date according to some experts.
Concrete Facts
However, the fact is, there are no concrete facts to support the activist position on cultural bias. But the first study to document the arrests of women based on their pregnancy, drug use, conditions and behaviors was published in 1992 by NAPW. According to it, of the more than 160 incidents of arrest of women based on their status as pregnant people, there was a “significant disproportionality” in the race of those women targeted for arrest and criminal prosecution – approximately 70% of the cases were brought against women of color. While a majority of these cases involved allegations that the woman was using an illegal drug while pregnant, African American women were particularly targeted for harsh and punitive responses, the study contended. “Scores, if not hundreds of new arrests have occurred since 1992,” NAPW said in a 2014 review.
During Patel’s case there is no concrete evidence to support the contention that she was singled out for her race, ethnicity, or national origin. Observers note nevertheless, that at every stage of a pregnant woman’s life, especially in the event of a miscarriage or abortion, she is dealing with an infrastructure peopled by those who have considerable discretion on how to treat them. The healthcare workers, the police, the prosecution, all of them exercise a high level of discretion and in a situation like Patel’s, consciously or unconsciously, the bias may creep in. “One has to look at how healthcare was given because there was a lot of discretion there, and it could have gone one way or the other,” says Jack. Patel could have been treated by the hospital where she went for help, and let go, or as in this case, she in fact ended up being arrested. The rest is history.
The National Advocates for Pregnant Women says it is not going to let it disappear into the annals of history. Paltrow said they are “making sure” the world knows what this prosecution, conviction, and “extreme” sentence means and the “unprecedented violations of civil rights, human rights, and human decency it represents.” Apna Ghar, a Chicago-based women’s support group started the Purvi Patel Family Support Fund to help Patel’s family through financial stress. News India Times got no response from Indian-American activists it contacted for this story.
Defense Team
Lawrence Marshall, a Stanford University law professor, and Joel Schumm, a law professor at Indiana University’s McKinley School of Law are leading a pro-bono team to fight the conviction. They filed a Notice of Appeal in Indiana Appeals Court April 24. Alongside them are a host of groups and stakeholders who will be represented by attorney Kathrine Jack in an amicus brief.
“We have a lot of medical professionals who are upset with this judgment, who feel the “born alive” test was improperly used, medical service providers who feel concerned this will deter pregnant women from seeking help, as well as some South Asian groups and tons of others,” Jack told News India Times.
One of the major arguments the Patel’s defense will put forward was that the feticide charge was never intended to apply to her kind of situation, but rather to anyone who attacked or harmed a pregnant women. That is why women’s rights groups are up in arms because they contend the law is being wrongfully used to criminalize abortion. The appeal and Jack’s amicus brief will also contend that both the feticide and neglect of child were based on evidence that was very weak and the science used had been discredited already. Evidence from prosecutors on how far along Patel’s pregnancy had gone, was also not strong, they will contend. Prosecutors had estimated it was somewhere between 25 and 28 weeks, while Patel had contended she was probably two months pregnant at the time of the incident in July 2013.
Future of Case
For Patel dismally waiting in jail, it could be several months before the next decisive development that will decide her fate.
Under Indiana law, after the Notice of Appeal filed April 24, the court has to prepare the transcript of the entire trial, a process that can take up to 90 days, Jack says. Following that, Patel’s team and Jack have 30 days to prepare their briefs and file the appeal.
The Appeals Court will then decide whether it wants to pronounce on the case or hold oral arguments. In Indiana courts don’t as a matter of course, hold oral arguments. “My guess is they will hold an oral argument because of the important issues,” that Patel’s case raises.
The post Was Purvi Patel a Victim of Cultural Bias? appeared first on News India Times.