TimesArgus.com - We Are Vermont

Vermont mom wants twin fetuses recognized as children



Patricia Blair, of Bennington, talks about her accident from her hospital bed.

AP Photo

Toolbox

By WILSON RING The Associated Press - Published: August 14, 2009

LEBANON, New Hampshire— A Vermont woman whose 6-month-old twin fetuses died after a car crashed into the family van wants them to be legally recognized as children, which is not the case under current state law.

A law change could mean stiffer penalties for drivers convicted of causing such deaths. But it also could reignite a debate over abortion, with proponents concerned that a revised law could conflict with the 1973 Roe vs. Wade U.S. Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion.

Patricia Blair, of Bennington, said she and her husband still were getting over losing a baby girl because of childbirth complications last year when they suffered their latest loss Monday. She said she wants to be the voice for the fetuses that were growing into a boy and girl until they died inside her after the crash. She and her husband, Randy, considered them miracles, she said.

"They're babies. It just makes no sense to me how anyone can say 'they're not babies, they're a fetus,'" said Blair, 38, who is recovering at the Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H. "We need to speak for them. If I can do something for these two I am going to do it."

No charges have been filed in the case, however, investigators are looking into the possibility that drugs may have been a factor, Bennington County State's Attorney Erica Marthage said without giving additional information.

There are 36 states that have some form of fetal homicide law; Vermont is not one of them.

State prosecutors are governed by a 1989 state Supreme Court decision that says people cannot be charged with killing a fetus in a car crash. That decision cited a common law tradition dating back to the 17th Century that says a fetus has to be born alive before it can get legal protection in such cases.

The Supreme Court said it was up to the Legislature to change the law.

But State Sen. Richard Sears, D-Bennington, and the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said that in his 18 years on the committee the issue has never come up.

"It's something we'd consider," Sears said Thursday.

Cheryl Hanna, a professor at the Vermont Law School, said the fetal homicide laws across the country have changed in recent years. In some cases the laws have been tools in the nation's ongoing abortion debate, she said.

"Pro-life advocates have seen passing fetal homicide laws as the basis for undermining Roe v. Wade," Hanna said.

She said she's doubtful the Vermont Legislature, which she described as one of the most pro-abortion rights legislatures in the country, would change the law.

"Having said that, the loss to Mrs. Blair is no less significant and real to her. It's a shame that there's not a very good way for the law to legitimately recognize the loss to her," Hanna said.

Blair said she doesn't know yet how to go about getting her fetuses — or others' — recognized as children.

"If I had some direction I am sure I could be a loud enough voice," she said.

The crash happened on U.S. Route 7 less than a mile from the family's home. Randy Blair was airlifted to Albany Medical Center while Patricia Blair was taken by ambulance to Dartmouth Hitchcock, considered the best place for the twin fetuses, which were just beyond 24 weeks of gestation, considered the outside limit at which a premature child can survive.

Randy Blair still is hospitalized in Albany. The couple's two children, ages 7 and 8, also were injured in the crash but have been released from the hospital and are being cared for by relatives.

The other driver was Kelly Cook, 22, of Pownal.








READER COMMENTS


AYK do you wear a tin foil hat?
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Mon, Aug 17, 2009, 4:23 pm EST

report this comment



Personally, i dont care whaqt happened to Tiller the baby killer. He & Hitler are in the same place for mass murders, And i think its a warm place.
-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Sun, Aug 16, 2009, 8:17 pm EST

report this comment



Well, I dont find it any different than the death penalty.
Or an eye for an eye. Dr Tiller the baby Killer was sacrificed to save thousands of babies lives. I am sure he would ve been proud as Sen Boxer would state.

In a church no less dare he even go to. He thought he could hide out there.
WEll doesnt seem any different than the left wing groups that burn churches, hmmm, i think one in Wasilla AK was torched by nuts.

An eye for an eye , biblical, justified to save children,
-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Sun, Aug 16, 2009, 8:03 pm EST

report this comment



Her parents took her AYK> That says it all.. they forced it on her, it wasn't her decision.. and tiller is dead, killed by an activist against abortion, you find that just fine, a human being that had been here long enough to have children of his own a family and was able to breath on his own, but you find that just fine that he was shot down.. in a church no less. That I find simply amazing about you folks!
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Sun, Aug 16, 2009, 11:37 am EST

report this comment



Very well stated,Jeff
-- Posted by bob on Sun, Aug 16, 2009, 9:07 am EST

report this comment



check out his video, this girl describes her abortion Dr Tiller the Baby Killer , which she now regrets her parents took her

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMC_70oYV8U
-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Sat, Aug 15, 2009, 8:16 pm EST

report this comment



whoa robert lee, the whole africa thing man.... not cool.
-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Sat, Aug 15, 2009, 6:21 pm EST

report this comment



I have mary. I've been in these debates before. I totally see where you're coming from. It is not a common practice for a woman to carry a child to 24 weeks and say .. Ah, I decided I don't want the baby now. Seriously.


Liberal agenda to control population. so what's your point GRL, that they have mind control over women and MAKE them decide not to have the child? For crying out loud, that's just ridiculous.. liberal agenda.

Watch out people the liberals can now control you're every action and every decision you make. they ARE SUPER POWERFUL PEOPLE!!! BWAHAHAHAHHAHAAAA..

I swear some of these discussions are like stepping into the twilight zone.. FANTASY!!!
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Sat, Aug 15, 2009, 4:14 pm EST

report this comment



nope, talk to the liberal facists at Planned Parenthood who want "fetuses" to not be treated as human beings in their agenda to reduce the human population.

my questions is: why don't they go to Africa to reduce the population of the world?? Its part of the rich African heritage and culture for genocide to happen.
-- Posted by General Robert Lee on Sat, Aug 15, 2009, 3:56 pm EST

report this comment



I do not think unborn babies should be counted as homicide, manslaughter perhaps. If it can't survive without being attatched to the mother, it should not have its own set of rights. It should be covered by the mother, untill it is breathing and poopin on its own, I wouldnt call it an "individual" human life.
-- Posted by Jeff Perkins on Sat, Aug 15, 2009, 3:01 pm EST

report this comment



Melissa--roughly 11 percent of abortions occur after the 12th week.

I used to be pro-choice. I have known many women who have had abortions (some who I realize now that they aborted what would have been their only child). I didn't think much about the matter until I was pregnant with my first child.

The OBGYN gave me tests which are routinely given to mothers to assess the risk of having a Down Syndrome baby. It was then that I asked how long a woman is able to legally get an abortion, and was told 24 weeks. I was very surprised. At 24 weeks, I was quite large with child. I could feel the baby moving and kicking.

Out of curiosity, I looked into the procedures used for abortions. I was astounded at what I found (I recommend looking at lifedynamics.com.) The photos of the aborted fetuses look very much like babies. Clearly they are not just blobs of cells. It was then that abortion went from an idea into a reality of what was happening to the fetuses.

Look at each side and make up your mind.
-- Posted by Mary Wilson on Sat, Aug 15, 2009, 2:08 pm EST

report this comment



1% of abortions are performed at that stage.

As time goes on, and all the options that women have today. the day after pill, birth control etc., there are less and less abortions today then many years ago. This is beating a dead horse.

As for this case with whether the person that caused the accident should be charged with manslaughter, I think they may be able to find that that is the case since the children were born and died shortly there after due to the trauma to the mother. That may not be the case, but that is the subject here, and it keeps going back to abortion. This mother didn't abort her children. Their gestation period was cut short due to an accident. The viability of the children is what would be in question in court. some babies can make it at six months gestation outside of the womb with the medical abilities of today. This may change that, and it may not.
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Sat, Aug 15, 2009, 12:06 pm EST

report this comment



I just recently had a baby and I have complete sympathy for this mother. I can only imagine the emotional pain. I would be ripshit if this had happened to me and my baby. She better at least get some significant $ from the other driver for this physical and mental anguish.
-- Posted by E M on Sat, Aug 15, 2009, 12:04 pm EST

report this comment



I agree with Mary's point. Since it is illegal to abort a baby after 3 months how is it not illegal to kill the baby in this way? What would the mother/doctor get charged with for aborting a 6 month old baby? Is it not manslaughter? The other driver in this scenario should have the same charges..
-- Posted by E M on Sat, Aug 15, 2009, 12:00 pm EST

report this comment



Melissa--a woman in the US can have an abortion up until 24 weeks gestation, and in some cases, into the third trimester. In France, by comparison, any abortion after 12 weeks is illegal.
-- Posted by Mary Wilson on Sat, Aug 15, 2009, 8:51 am EST

report this comment



A PARASITE? A BABY IS A PARASITE? I have heard it all now. If a baby is a parasite Craig Lavery, then your a louse!
-- Posted by How do I heart thee on Fri, Aug 14, 2009, 11:21 pm EST

report this comment



Please allow me to apologize if I offended anyone with my last comment. I do not mean to belittle Patricia's loss in any way. If the other driver was at fault then he should be punished to the full extent of the law. However, I do not believe that anyone would be well served by changing laws in order to make sure the other driver is used as an example. Again, my apologies for the harsh tone that came across.
-- Posted by Craig Lavery on Fri, Aug 14, 2009, 11:05 pm EST

report this comment



"considered the best place for the twin fetuses, which were just beyond 24 weeks of gestation, considered the outside limit at which a premature child can survive."

Until any mammal can survive outside of the womb, it is a parasite. No personal feelings involved here, just the facts.
-- Posted by Craig Lavery on Fri, Aug 14, 2009, 10:36 pm EST

report this comment



Yea well seems BenningtonBanner, Burlington Free Press and WCAX havea pretty good handle on this compassion and laws that need to be changed
-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Fri, Aug 14, 2009, 10:00 pm EST

report this comment



Well, AYK and Mary, I suggest you take your points to the legislature instead of pointing them out here, not that I think you shouldn't debate the issue if you choose, but talking about it here won't change anything. You both apparently feel strongly about this and have made some good talking points. Good Luck! Not sarcasm I sincerely mean that.
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Fri, Aug 14, 2009, 8:42 pm EST

report this comment



That's a good point AYK.
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Fri, Aug 14, 2009, 8:35 pm EST

report this comment



When women in Vermont are doing drugs while they are pregnant SRS gets involved. When the babies are born if they testpositive for drugs they are taken away and put in state custody and charged with neglect. So how does the state charge a women for ingesting drugs while she has an unborn baby in her, yet in this tragic incident as well as the one in 1989 another perptrator has no responsibility for the death of a child while the other child can be detoxed, at least he/she has a chance for life..
-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Fri, Aug 14, 2009, 8:30 pm EST

report this comment



As far as I know, not an expert, it's illegal in all states, except for when it's a matter of life and death to the mother to abort a child past the first trimester. Do you know something I don't?

As far as this case goes, it's when is it the point that we can call the baby a baby and someone can be charged with manslaughter, that's the real question here isn't it Mary? This case is not about abortion is it? It's about whether someone causing harm to the mother and the children dying due to that harm does it become a case of killing the babies:Manslaughter.

This is about logic. but I feel you are taking two different scenarios and blurring them together. That to me is emotional.

As for the abortion issue, the baby can't live with out the mother, if the mother chooses not to carry it, you are going to mandate what she does with her body for nine months? Talk about big brother.
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Fri, Aug 14, 2009, 8:25 pm EST

report this comment



It's in my body isn't it. are you going to control me now like I"m a machine?
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Fri, Aug 14, 2009, 8:21 pm EST

report this comment



Melissa--If abortion after 3 months is wrong, at what point does it change from right to wrong? What is the instant? A four-month gestation fetus is also not viable outside the womb. But it is not ok to abort at that point? Why not? Because it looks like a baby, perhaps? Just wondering what your rationing is behind what you are saying.

A developing embryo/fetus is not "your" body. It is an independent living structure with its own DNA. You can do whatever you want with your own body. But it is a scientific fact that the embryo/fetus has its own set of DNA. It is not a replica of you. It is, biologically, its own being.

While the fetus would be dependent upon your life structure and only live while you live, one could argue that this dependency continues outside the womb. A newborn cannot take care of itself. Yet, legally, even though the parent or caregiver must provide food and take care of basic needs for this person, since the baby is considered a legal human being, it is not legal to murder that baby. Even if taking care of the baby is inconvenient or gets in the way of other things, the baby has rights.

The law has a place in legislating morality. That is why you can't legally go out and murder, steal, or rape. This discussion is an issue essentially of when life legally begins. The larger issue, however, is one of human rights and a basic question of what it means to be human.

Others states protect women from their unborn baby being assaulted and impose penalties when this occurs. People who are pro-abortion are very afraid of an unborn child being considered a "person," because at that point the "person" has legal rights just like the mother or father, and that would include the right to not be killed by another person, which is what happened in this case.

This isn't about emotion. It's about logic.
-- Posted by Mary Wilson on Fri, Aug 14, 2009, 6:39 pm EST

report this comment



The mother is making this a political issue to change the way things are, so we are discussing it mary. I didn't want to get into this on the other thread that announced the horrible event. But now, it's put out there from the mother to debate this issue yet again.
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Fri, Aug 14, 2009, 6:07 pm EST

report this comment



and Undeveloped, the lungs would not be fully developed until the 7 to 8 month. How can they breath with out lungs.
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Fri, Aug 14, 2009, 6:05 pm EST

report this comment



I was just pointing out the loop in the statute. It could be used in this case.

However, I don't feel it's your place to tell me what to do with my body.

I do believe anything past the first trimester is wrong, but that's my opinion. Not the medical society or the statutes in some states. As is why I believe some states have decided anything past that point when the heart begins to beat, it is a baby. No longer a fetus. Although, it would not be able to live on it's own with out the mother until 7 mths or so. But, progress is getting to the point where they are able to incubate an unborn at 6 mths to further develop and begin to be viable on it's own in some cases. The mother can't breath for her child Mary, emotions are taking over in most of the people on this subject.

As emotional as this subject is, people are going by that factor and not actuality that the babies would not be able to survive with out the mother outside of the womb. Unfortunately, sadly and horrifically it happened that way in this case with the twins, probably because they were so tiny.
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Fri, Aug 14, 2009, 6:04 pm EST

report this comment



What an interesting loophole--being born. Is that what makes a person a legal human being, taking a breath of air? If I hold my breath for 30 seconds, am I no longer human since I am not breathing air? What about 90 seconds? My heart is still beating and my brain is still working. But to be a legal human being, babies seem to have to breath air.

A baby is dependent upon its mother (or caregiver) before and after birth. So when does "viability" really happen? At 18-years-old? When they can pay their own way for their rent and their food?

I'm saddened by this story and to see it being made into a liberal/conservative issue by many. A person should be able to be against war and support life as well. This poor mother and her family had a terrible tragedy, and because some people are afraid that "fetuses" might get legal rights to get a chance to live, legally it seems, there will be no justice in this case.

If this is what abortion rights mean, that an expectant mother can have such a tragedy happen and have no legal recourse, maybe it is time to rethink abortion rights.
-- Posted by Mary Wilson on Fri, Aug 14, 2009, 4:31 pm EST

report this comment



My wrong.. 36 states do.. didn't read far enough.. sorry.
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Fri, Aug 14, 2009, 11:53 am EST

report this comment



I believe the loop hole that None None mentioned is viable. They were born. Then they died, and it was all caused by the 'accident'. However, it's not just vermont that has this law. Most of them do, I can't seem to find any state that shows otherwise.
-- Posted by Melissa B. on Fri, Aug 14, 2009, 11:51 am EST

report this comment



Seems very simple to me too, they are her babies, and they should be recognized as such!
-- Posted by How do I heart thee on Fri, Aug 14, 2009, 11:39 am EST

report this comment



If she fell that way, that would be an accident, not murder. The girl who hit her wasn't playing volleyball. Perhaps, Mel, you could enlighten me why a fetus with a brainwave is not considered a person, while a person breathing air with a brainwave is considered a person. Especially since you seem to be so wise.
-- Posted by Mary Wilson on Fri, Aug 14, 2009, 11:18 am EST

report this comment



Ah, but say this woman decides to do something like play volleyball and in the process, trips and falls in some freak accident, landing in a pile, twisted up with a giant gas grill. Her six month fetus dies as a result, is she guilty of murder?
-- Posted by Mel Parker on Fri, Aug 14, 2009, 11:02 am EST

report this comment



If I am understanding Vermont laws, then a person could go up to a nine-month pregnant woman, kick her in the stomach until the baby dies, and then be charged only with assault?

A person is considered "dead" when they have no brainwaves. Maybe we should start considering a person "alive" when they have brainwaves. Clearly these "fetuses" had brains and brainwaves.
-- Posted by Mary Wilson on Fri, Aug 14, 2009, 10:28 am EST

report this comment



These babies have names and little foot prints on their hospital documents. No one can deny these human beings, right to advocacy. it appears in 1989 there were other babies(y) denied equal justice, and now this tragic incident, and how many others??
So when a boyfriend or a husband kicks or punches a woman in the belly from domestic violence or assault and she loses her baby, then apparently all these years these incidents happen these men are simply charged with assault!
-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Fri, Aug 14, 2009, 9:55 am EST

report this comment



If I'm reading these stories right didnt they remove the babies out of her womb alive? Doesnt that make them legal "humans" in this screwed up states eyes. As soon as fetus develop heart beats they should be considered babies. you cant have an abortion after a certian time cause they are considered viable humans so why in the heck is this any different.
-- Posted by None None on Fri, Aug 14, 2009, 9:22 am EST

report this comment



She did NOT choose to end the lives within her body...they were not aborted fetus', they were her twins, babies, growing and thriving in her womb before the accident occurred.
-- Posted by Nancy Fecteau on Fri, Aug 14, 2009, 8:44 am EST

report this comment



............" That decision cited a common law tradition dating back to the 17th Century that says a fetus has to be born alive before it can get legal protection in such cases.
Isnt it funny how this 17th century tradition is adhered ot in this state, but the marriage tradition (adding the gay law) which dates back further was changed based on what then? Change? Well i guess it is time to change this old 17th century tradition too,
-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Fri, Aug 14, 2009, 7:37 am EST

report this comment



It seems pretty simple to me......They are her babies.
-- Posted by None None on Fri, Aug 14, 2009, 6:50 am EST

report this comment



Hmmm, gee all the words of this mom sound exactly like the words I used yesterday. Libs are so worried about their own selfish self centered ideaology, they could care less about these babies, That explains all teh villifying of my comments, my calling these little humans babies rather than fetus struck a nerve.
Meanwhile they were all posting about a dead dog but could care less about these babies.
So in the libs view, if Roe V Wade is brought into any conversation, the the rest of the general public has to suffer any loss so long as they have tehir liberal ideaologies in place.
CHANGE right? Perhaps some more change is needed.
-- Posted by Are you Kidding? on Fri, Aug 14, 2009, 6:23 am EST

report this comment


You must be logged in to leave a comment. Register | Log In

Logout