Pamela Raymond is a former nurse who lives in the quaint city of Morristown, Vt. And according to the state, Raymond is a murderer.
A story in the Burlington Free Press describes how this model citizen is being shafted for a nonexistent crime. Police say Raymond gave her husband’s antidepressant medication to her 4-month-old grandson in an attempt to quiet him while she was away at a doctor’s appointment. The child eventually stopped breathing and later died. For this she is being accused of second-degree murder, on top of counts of child cruelty.
My question is: Why?
Yes, this woman’s actions most assuredly led to the death of her infant grandson. There’s no question this former nurse, whose license was twice revoked for diverting medication, was the one most directly responsible for this tragedy. This woman, however, whose medical background makes her oversight even more egregious, is a victim of a hypocritical legal system and society.
This death was an alleged accident and the result of a lack of respect for medical law and the intention of prescription parameters.
So if this unintentional murder is going to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, I’m a little confused: What should abortion clinics be charged with?
Abortion is an incredibly purposeful process when done in the most socially acceptable medical way. This procedure often has extensive medical or surgical elements that are obviously well within the knowledge of both the doctor administering the abortion and the mother of the fetus being aborted.
Given all these points that contribute to the intentionality of abortion — a process in which a not-fully-developed human is destroyed — how is Raymond, involved in an allegedly inadvertent murder, more culpable than the average abortion doctor?
If the difference is time, I can’t see how that’s anything but an ultimately arbitrary standard. What’s the difference between 12 weeks and 38 weeks or, in Raymond’s case, four months? If it’s acceptable to kill the fetus 18 weeks from conception, why not 100 weeks from conception? As you might’ve learned from the abortionbreastcancer.com folks yesterday on the Plaza of the Americas, there’s strong evidence for an abortion and breast cancer link. The risk to the mother, which is the reason abortions are restricted to first and second trimesters, would most assuredly be greatly reduced if the abortion happened after birth.
If the only difference is the status of the fetus and its dependence on the mother, the justification is once again subjective.
Premature babies have a small chance of surviving the dangerous process of early birth, so even when the natural process of a baby coming to a status of being able to survive outside the womb is interrupted, there’s a chance the baby can survive. If this is true, then what means of differentiating between those eligible and ineligible for abortion do we have?
There’s always the chance an aborted baby would’ve been born into a situation judged not worth living for.
Though I’m not clear on who it is that decides these things; if we’re using this justification, then the actions of Raymond are a happy accident at worst and a commendable action at best. If the child had not died at this point, he would’ve been at the mercy of a quack nurse and a short-tempered grandfather, possibly to be abused far more painfully than the peaceful death by means of antidepressants.
All I’m asking for is some consistency, America.
Nate Rushing is a sophomore political science student. His column appears every Thursday.
