July, 22 2016, 02:30pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Jenni Kotting, Communications Director for the National Network of Abortion Funds
media@fundabortionnow.org
Indiana Appeals Court Sends Mixed Message with Purvi Patel Decision
People all over the nation have been waiting with baited breath to hear a decision on the appeal of Purvi Patel's case. The successful prosecution of Purvi Patel established a dangerous precedent for punishing the pregnancy outcomes of people of color in Indiana and in other states with similar laws.
People all over the nation have been waiting with baited breath to hear a decision on the appeal of Purvi Patel's case. The successful prosecution of Purvi Patel established a dangerous precedent for punishing the pregnancy outcomes of people of color in Indiana and in other states with similar laws. Patel has been in jail for over a year due to the unscientific and biased arguments on the part of the prosecution. Although the decision sounds promising in that the feticide charge has been vacated, Patel still has a felony charge.
On Friday, July 22nd, 2016, the Indiana Court of Appeals decided that
"the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the baby would not have died but for Patel's failure to provide medical care. Therefore, we vacate Patel's class A felony conviction and remand to the trial court with instructions to enter judgment of conviction for class D felony neglect of a dependent and resentence her accordingly."
The court vacated Patel's charge of feticide, stating,
"We hold that the legislature did not intend for the feticide statute to apply to illegal abortions or to be used to prosecute women for their own abortions. Therefore, we vacate Patel's feticide conviction."
The decision on her appeal case will set a standard for how pregnant people, particularly women of color, are treated through their experiences with abortion, miscarriage, and other pregnancy outcomes. As abortion access advocates celebrate the statement the Indiana Court of Appeals made in stating that feticide can't be used to prosecute "illegal abortions," it is also a moment to reflect on the fact that people of color and people who have abortions of any kind are still vulnerable to being charged with a felony. While vacating the feticide charge has been the hopeful focus of the outcome for many, the felony class D, with a sentence of 180 days to six years, sends a mixed message that doesn't yet restore the relationship between doctors and patients.
Already, Indiana is not a safe place for pregnancy, childbirth, abortion, or miscarriage. It has the fourth highest rate of maternal deaths in the United States, its early infant mortality rate is just as alarming at 7.1 percent (compared to a national average of 5.6 percent), and the disparity is 2.3 times higher between black and white infant deaths. Overall, Indiana residents have worse health outcomes than the rest of the nation, particularly among people of color. The fact that people of color are at greater risk for miscarriage puts them also at greater risk for incarceration due to feticide laws already on the books, such as those applied to Indiana residents Bei Bei Shuai and Purvi Patel, which medical and legal experts have witnessed and decried.
Shelly Dodson, Director of All-Options Pregnancy Resource Center in Bloomington, Indiana agrees that Purvi Patel's sentence and class D felony charge set up a dangerous divide between doctors and patients, and describes what it's like to lack support from the state government:
"The research is clear. If pregnant people fear criminal consequences, they don't go to the doctor. Indiana is setting a dangerous precedent not to trust the medical community. Choosing to criminalize people around pregnancy decisions and pregnancy outcomes is a grave injustice, which is just as true for anti-abortion laws like HB 1337 as it is for Purvi Patel. The state of Indiana is sending a clear message, to anyone who is or might be pregnant that, "you don't deserve help, you don't deserve support - you deserve jail." People throughout Indiana deserve open-hearted support through all their pregnancy and parenting turning points and to be treated with respect and dignity."
Parker Dockray, the Executive Director of Backline describes why support for pregnant people is so crucial:
"The state of Indiana is choosing to restrict and punish women of color who experience poor pregnancy outcomes, while at the same time taking away needed supports such as unbiased options counseling, information and support for postpartum depression, and other resources for pregnant people and families. Purvi Patel's case is an example of why access to information and support is so crucial. Indiana's leaders continue to enforce a punitive response when their focus should be on increasing supportive programs and access to information - not on punishing people who have had a miscarriage or are seeking abortion care."
Jenni Kotting, Indiana resident and Communications Director for the National Network of Abortion Funds describes further:
"Imagine going to the hospital, despite all the alarm bells ringing in your head, especially in a state that has a track record of criminalizing miscarriage and abortion. You do your best to get the health care you need to survive, you say what you need to say, only to have your physician contact law enforcement. You get hauled off to prison. And then you receive a 20 year sentence after going through a court process that gets everything wrong, assassinates your character, all the while knowing that your tragedy is a precedent for any other person who has an abortion or miscarriage in Indiana. This happened to Purvi Patel and this can happen to any one of us who can get pregnant. It's a heinous breach of medical confidentiality that can never be fully mended."
Yamani Hernandez, Executive Director of the National Network of Abortion Funds decries
"While the Indiana Court of Appeals attempted to disrupt the troubling relationship between feticide laws and abortion rights, they ultimately failed Purvi Patel. They upheld the State's accusation that Patel could have prevented death after an extremely preterm miscarriage, which rejects both medical science and compassion for a woman who needed medical care, not to be sent to prison. People of color are bearing the brunt of unscientific laws and misplaced moral outrage against abortion, which is blurring into the territory of miscarriage, putting any pregnant person at risk of prosecution and incarceration. It needs to stop, and the decision didn't go far enough to restore full justice for Purvi Patel."
LATEST NEWS
'We Will Organize Those People,' Anti-Poverty Crusader William Barber Says of Millions Set to Lose Medicaid
"They will not kill us and our communities without a fight."
Jul 02, 2025
Armed with 51 caskets and a new federal analysis, faith leaders and people who would be directly impacted by U.S. President Donald Trump's so-called Big Beautiful Bill got arrested protesting in Washington, D.C. this week and pledged to organize the millions of Americans set to lose their health insurance under the package.
Citing Capitol Police, The Hill reported Monday that "a total of 38 protestors were arrested, including 24 detained at the intersection of First and East Capitol streets northeast and another 14 arrested in the Capitol Rotunda. Those taken into custody were charged with crowding, obstructing, and incommoding."
The "Moral Monday" action was organized because of the "dangerous and deadly cuts" in the budget reconciliation package, which U.S. Senate Republicans—with help from Vice President JD Vance—sent to the House of Representatives Tuesday and which the lower chamber took up for consideration Wednesday.
According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the megabill would result in an estimated 17 million Americans becoming uninsured over the next decade: 11.8 million due to the Medicaid cuts, 4.2 million people due to expiring Affordable Care Act tax credits, and another 1 million due to other policies.
"This is policy violence. This is policy murder," Bishop William Barber said at Monday's action, which began outside the U.S. Supreme Court followed by a march to the Capitol. "That's why we brought these caskets today—because in the first year of this bill, as it is, the estimates are that 51,000 people will die."
"If you know that, and still pass it, that's not a mistake," added Barber, noting that Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.)—one of three Republican senators who ultimately opposed the bill—had said before the vote that his party was making a mistake on healthcare.
Moral Mondays originated in Tillis' state a dozen years ago, to protest North Carolina Republicans' state-level policymaking, led by Barber, who is not only a bishop but also president of the organization Repairers of the Breach and co-chair of the Poor People's Campaign: A National Call for Moral Revival.
This past Monday, Barber vowed that if federal lawmakers kick millions of Americans off their healthcare with this megabill, "we will organize those people," according to Sarah Anderson of the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS).
In partnership with IPS and the Economic Policy Institute, Repairers of the Breach on Monday published The High Moral Stakes of Budget Reconciliation fact sheet, which examines the version of the budget bill previously passed by the House. The document highlights cuts to health coverage, funding for rural hospitals, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
The fact sheet also points out that while slashing programs for the poor, the bill would give tax breaks to wealthy individuals and corporations, plus billions of dollars to the Pentagon and Trump's mass deportation effort.
"Instead of inflicting policy violence on the most vulnerable, Congress should harness America's abundant wealth to create a moral economy that works for all of us," the publication asserts. "By fairly taxing the wealthy and big corporations, reducing our bloated military budget, and demilitarizing immigration policy, we could free up more than enough public funds to ensure we can all survive and thrive."
"As our country approaches its 250th anniversary," it concludes, "we have no excuse for not investing our national resources in ways that reflect our Constitutional values: to establish justice, domestic tranquility, real security, and the general welfare for all."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Asylum Crackdown Dealt Major Blow in 'Hugely Important' Court Ruling
"Nothing in the Constitution grants the president the sweeping authority asserted," wrote a U.S. district judge.
Jul 02, 2025
President Donald Trump's crackdown on asylum-seekers was dealt a major blow on Wednesday when U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss ruled that the administration had vastly overstepped its legal authority with an executive order issued on the first day of his second term.
Politico reports that Moss found that Trump's January 20 executive order slapping new restrictions on asylum-seekers even if they arrive at proper points of entry exceeded his powers as outlined by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which the judge described as containing the "sole and exclusive" procedure for properly deporting undocumented immigrants. In fact, Moss went so far as to say that Trump had established "an alternative immigration system" with his asylum order.
Moss—appointed to the district court in Washington, D.C. by former President Barack Obama—also didn't buy the administration's rationale that such drastic measures were necessary due to the emergency of an "invasion" at the southern border.
"Nothing in the INA or the Constitution grants the president... the sweeping authority asserted in the proclamation and implementing guidance," the judge wrote. "An appeal to necessity cannot fill that void."
Lee Gelernt, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union who argued the case in court, praised the ruling as "a hugely important decision" that will "save the lives of families fleeing grave danger" and "reaffirms that the president cannot ignore the laws Congress has passed and the most basic premise of our country's separation of powers."
The original Trump order not only barred asylum-seekers who showed up at the border outside the proper points of entry, but also mandated that asylum-seekers at the points of entry provide additional documentation beyond what is required by law, including medical histories and information about potential past criminal records.
Moss' order is not going into effect immediately as he is giving the administration two weeks to prepare an appeal.
Keep ReadingShow Less
House Dems Form Procedural 'Conga Line' to Block Medicaid and SNAP Cuts
"We're here to help people, not screw people over!" said Rep. Jim McGovern.
Jul 02, 2025
Democrats in the House of Representatives on Wednesday banded together in an attempt to gum up the works to block House Republicans from passing their massive budget bill that includes historic and devastating cuts to both Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program known as SNAP.
One by one, House Democrats moved in what Punchbowl News reporter Jake Sherman described as a "conga line" to make the exact same request for unanimous consent "to amend the rule to make an order the amendment at the desk that protects against any cuts to Medicaid and SNAP." Each time a Democrat would make the request, Rep. Steve Womack (R-Ark.), holding the gavel in the chamber, informed them that "the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained."
At one point, Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) grew frustrated with his Republican colleagues for their insistence on passing the budget bill, which he noted would significantly cut taxes for the richest Americans while decimating safety net programs designed to help poor and working class Americans.
"We're here to help people, not screw people over!" McGovern fumed.
As of this writing, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R.La.) remained in his office, according to Punchbowlreporting, an apparent signal that a floor vote for Wednesday remained up in the air.
The United States Senate on Tuesday passed a budget package by the slimmest of margins that the Congressional Budget Office has estimated would slash spending on Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program by more than $1 trillion over a ten-year-period and would slash SNAP spending by more than $250 billion over the same period.
Previous polling has shown that the budget package is broadly unpopular and a new poll from Data for Progress released Wednesday found that the Republican plan grows more unpopular the more voters learn about its provisions. In particular, voters expressed significant concern about the plan's impact on the national debt, cuts to CHIP and Medicaid, and attacks on clean energy programs.
Over 100 @HouseDemocrats lined up to ask for "unanimous consent to amend the rule and make in order the amendment at the desk that protects against any cuts to Medicaid & SNAP" pic.twitter.com/r5ktS9Uj0K
— Jahana Hayes (@RepJahanaHayes) July 2, 2025
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular