― Emilymv (Emilymv), Tuesday, 21 December 2004 15:31 (twenty-one years ago)
― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Tuesday, 21 December 2004 15:55 (twenty-one years ago)
― Emilymv (Emilymv), Tuesday, 21 December 2004 16:02 (twenty-one years ago)
― jocelyn (Jocelyn), Tuesday, 21 December 2004 16:13 (twenty-one years ago)
Do these stats apply worldwide or just in the States?
― Rumpy Pumpkin (rumpypumpkin), Tuesday, 21 December 2004 16:14 (twenty-one years ago)
wouldn't homicide be common as cause of death for most young women?
― stevie nixed (stevie nixed), Tuesday, 21 December 2004 16:17 (twenty-one years ago)
i just found info in the u.s. so i don't know about elsewhere.
and about her claiming to be pregnant/have given birth---is her husband a total dolt? he has to be in on it, else he is the mental equivalent of an apple.
― Emilymv (Emilymv), Tuesday, 21 December 2004 16:21 (twenty-one years ago)
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/12/19/missouri.fetus/index.html
Who is the evil person who decided to put that picture with that headline???
― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 21 December 2004 16:29 (twenty-one years ago)
― Emilymv (Emilymv), Tuesday, 21 December 2004 16:32 (twenty-one years ago)
― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 21 December 2004 16:37 (twenty-one years ago)
― Emilymv (Emilymv), Tuesday, 21 December 2004 16:38 (twenty-one years ago)
― TOMBOT, Tuesday, 21 December 2004 16:42 (twenty-one years ago)
if this is such a pervasive problem, why is this case singled out for such overwhelming media attention? other than the fact that it will be used by the right wing to try to overturn abortion rights?
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 21 December 2004 16:43 (twenty-one years ago)
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 21 December 2004 16:46 (twenty-one years ago)
― TOMBOT, Tuesday, 21 December 2004 16:49 (twenty-one years ago)
it is a sensational story, that is why the media attention is so great. lots of wierd details. and i think your assertion that it will be used by the right wing to try and overturn abortion rights is a bit paranoid.
as far as the data i found goes, i am not about to relocate all of the individual state data! but if you are interested, just google search each state you want to look at. search through vital statistics by age and sex, then search for homicide stats and victim info.
― Emilymv (Emilymv), Tuesday, 21 December 2004 16:55 (twenty-one years ago)
― Nemo (JND), Tuesday, 21 December 2004 16:56 (twenty-one years ago)
Nor do they necessarily indicate that pregnant women are at a greater risk of death by homicide than non-pregnant women. The release says that in one year, using national statistics, homicide was the second-leading cause of death among all young women, pregnant or not, and that accidents were the leading cause of death among both pregnant and non-pregnant women. Moreover, the The release does point to three state/local studies that showed homicide as the leading cause of death among pregnant women, (only) one of which also showed homicide as just the 5th-leading cause among non-pregnant women. All three studies focused upon urban communities – Cook County, Illinois, New York, and the State of Maryland (about 40% Baltimore, plus semi-urban sprawl through the DC suburbs). The Post article mentions additional studies showing the same in Massachusetts (population heavily dominated by Boston/Worcester) and Georgia (an exception, perhaps, but Atlanta metro is about 40% of the population and contains a big inner city). Urban communities are home to more single mothers. Would the statistics be the same if you studied cause of death in suburban and rural areas?
Note also that the big media stories here involve white people.
i think your assertion that it will be used by the right wing to try and overturn abortion rights is a bit paranoid.
"overturn abortion rights" was misleading. the anti-Roe forces are seeking incremental change in part through litigation involving just this kind of case.
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 21 December 2004 17:55 (twenty-one years ago)
I should have added "or is sought to be denied"
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 21 December 2004 18:05 (twenty-one years ago)
omg
― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 21 December 2004 18:12 (twenty-one years ago)
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 21 December 2004 18:29 (twenty-one years ago)
I thought the anti-Roe brigade just cared about cases where a pregnant woman's fetus is killed, seeking to change laws so that those responsible can be charged with murder. I doubt they will give a damn about a case where the baby survives but the mother dies. They are not concerned with the life of the mother.
― Leon the Fratboy (Ex Leon), Tuesday, 21 December 2004 18:41 (twenty-one years ago)
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 21 December 2004 18:46 (twenty-one years ago)
― Emilymv (Emilymv), Tuesday, 21 December 2004 19:35 (twenty-one years ago)
― andy, Tuesday, 21 December 2004 19:56 (twenty-one years ago)
i would make an alien joke but....that'd be in rather poor taste.
― latebloomer (latebloomer), Tuesday, 21 December 2004 20:12 (twenty-one years ago)
Interesting
― Michele Bianco, Tuesday, 21 December 2004 20:22 (twenty-one years ago)
The premature infant, named Victoria, is reported to be healthy and has since been re-united with her father. ® Is "father" a registered trademark now?
― dave225 (Dave225), Tuesday, 21 December 2004 20:30 (twenty-one years ago)
― LORD OF ALL THINGS HOMOELECTRONIC (trigonalmayhem), Tuesday, 21 December 2004 21:31 (twenty-one years ago)
i think they mean that by being caught with the baby in her house, she is legally screwed. she can't claim to be falsely accused, etc.
― Emilymv (Emilymv), Tuesday, 21 December 2004 21:35 (twenty-one years ago)
― LSTD (answer) (sexyDancer), Tuesday, 21 December 2004 21:45 (twenty-one years ago)
― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 21 December 2004 22:26 (twenty-one years ago)
― papa november (papa november), Tuesday, 21 December 2004 22:50 (twenty-one years ago)
An article about this in the Age had a comment from the alleged kidnappers husband that has me boggled:
Yesterday, Montgomery's husband, Kevin Montgomery, said he believed that the baby his wife presented to him was theirs.
According to federal authorities, Kevin Montgomery picked up his wife in Topeka on Thursday and drove her and the new baby, whom they called Abigail, about 65km south to Melvern, where the couple showed her off.
After Lisa Montgomery made her first appearance in federal court yesterday, Kevin Montgomery said, "I had no idea," when asked by reporters what he had known about his wife's alleged actions.
HOW CAN YOU HAVE NO IDEA YOUR WIFE WAS NOT ACTUALLY PREGNANT. What did she do, explain it away somehow? Stuff pillows down her top and refuse to be touched? Is the man retarded? Weird, this whole thing is so damn weird.
― Trayce (trayce), Wednesday, 22 December 2004 04:35 (twenty-one years ago)
― roxymuzak (roxymuzak), Wednesday, 22 December 2004 05:45 (twenty-one years ago)
― kyle (akmonday), Wednesday, 22 December 2004 07:42 (twenty-one years ago)
― Nemo (JND), Wednesday, 22 December 2004 15:47 (twenty-one years ago)
― Thermo Thinwall (Thermo Thinwall), Wednesday, 22 December 2004 17:12 (twenty-one years ago)
― ken c (ken c), Wednesday, 22 December 2004 17:28 (twenty-one years ago)
"WOMB RAIDER: CAUGHT RED HANDED"
― LORD OF ALL THINGS HOMOELECTRONIC (trigonalmayhem), Thursday, 23 December 2004 06:48 (twenty-one years ago)
― Nemo (JND), Thursday, 23 December 2004 15:20 (twenty-one years ago)
― LORD OF ALL THINGS HOMOELECTRONIC (trigonalmayhem), Friday, 24 December 2004 01:17 (twenty-one years ago)
― aimurchie, Friday, 24 December 2004 02:17 (twenty-one years ago)
― kossori (not entirely unhappy), Friday, 24 December 2004 02:41 (twenty-one years ago)
― aimurchie, Friday, 24 December 2004 03:10 (twenty-one years ago)
― kossori (not entirely unhappy), Friday, 24 December 2004 04:43 (twenty-one years ago)
― aimurchie, Friday, 24 December 2004 09:54 (twenty-one years ago)
― mark grout (mark grout), Friday, 24 December 2004 09:57 (twenty-one years ago)