has this been posted already?!?!

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-28-2007
has this been posted already?!?!
9
Thu, 01-10-2008 - 4:48pm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/07/wchina107.xml


A Chinese woman who was forced to have an abortion despite being nine months pregnant is suing the authorities for their actions.


Jin Yani's waters had already broken when China's abortion police came for her. They took her to a nearby abortion centre, injected her unborn baby girl and removed the body two days later.


Mrs Jin's crime was to have become pregnant by her fiance five months before she married him at the age of 20, the legal minimum.



advertisement







Pregnancy outside marriage is illegal. But forced abortions are now supposed to be illegal in China.


In a blow against the state's brutally imposed one-child policy, she and her husband are claiming danmages against the authorities, saying that officials acted unlawfully.


China's higher courts have agreed to hear the plea - the first time this has happened in a case of this kind.


Yang Zhongchen, her husband, tried to prevent the abortion by wining and dining officials in Hebei province. He also agreed to pay a fine of £650, but none of this prevented Changli county family planning officials arriving on Sept 7, 2000.


Mrs Jin said: "I got on my knees and begged them after they took me to the clinic and said I wanted to give birth to my daughter. I had already named her Yang Yin."


In the clinic, she was injected with a large syringe. Her husband arrived in time to witness the removal of the dead foetus with forceps two days later.


Mrs Jin lost blood, and was hospitalised for 44 days. Her husband was charged for the medicine she needed. He said that his wife is now infertile as a result of the abortion.


Mr Yang has demanded £85,000 to cover medical expenses, psychological distress and Mrs Jin's inability to conceive.


At first the case got nowhere, but the regional people's court agreed to hear the couple's appeal in October. At that point, Mr Yang said that officials made contact offering him a job and free hospital treatment for his wife. But that is not enough, he said.


"They have made no mention of damages," he said while on a visit to Beijing to meet his lawyer. "We can get a job anywhere."


But the couple say they can never truly be compensated.


"Our baby will never come back," Mrs Jin said. "We just hope this kind of thing will never happen again."



Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket


Photobucket

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-28-2007
Thu, 01-10-2008 - 4:49pm
What a sad story!!!

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket


Photobucket

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-13-2006
Thu, 01-10-2008 - 5:21pm

That's horrifying!

"It is right to be contented with what we have, but never with what we are."

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2004
Thu, 01-10-2008 - 5:49pm
that is absolutely horrific IMO. I feel so bad for the couple.








Photobucket
Photobucket
*
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-10-2003
Thu, 01-10-2008 - 7:36pm
Horrifying indeed! Assault and battery upon her, IMHO.

.
.
.

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-13-2006
Thu, 01-10-2008 - 8:34pm

" Assault and battery upon her, IMHO."


Yes, that would circumvent opening the abortion-related can of worms.

"It is right to be contented with what we have, but never with what we are."

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-10-2003
Fri, 01-11-2008 - 7:22am

KIdnapping and medical malpractice- good calls.

Yep about the bill that failed- it was the Motherhood Protection Act. It provided for far more stringent penalties and sentences than the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

Bill at: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.2219.IS:

http://www.house.gov/lofgren/news/2001/010425.htm
LOFGREN INTRODUCES MOTHERHOOD PROTECTION ACT

Offers Middle Ground in Protecting Pregnant Women and Their Unborn Children

April 25, 2001

(Washington, DC) - Today, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) introduced an amendment to the controversial Unborn Victims of Violence Act under consideration in Congress this week. Her legislation, the Motherhood Protection Act, is a bi-partisan compromise bill to protect pregnant women from violence without creating a constitutional challenge. Both bills try to address violent crimes that cause prenatal injury or miscarriage.

"The Motherhood Protection Act increases the penalty an assailant may receive, up to a life sentence, if someone attacks a pregnant woman and causes a prenatal injury or a miscarriage," said Lofgren. "Denying motherhood to a woman who yearns to become a mother is a truly horrendous crime. It should not be caught up in the abortion debate."

The Motherhood Protection Act recognizes that existing federal law protects women from violent assault and creates an additional crime when that assault compromises a pregnancy or causes a miscarriage. Someone who attacks a pregnant woman and injures her unborn child or causes her to have a miscarriage can be sentenced to life imprisonment. It does not matter whether the assailant knew or intended to cause prenatal injury or miscarriage. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act (UVVA) only allows for a life sentence if someone intended to cause harm to a fetus.

Currently, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act is seen as a thinly veiled attempt to legislatively overturn Roe v. Wade and does not even mention the harm to the woman. The bill's definition of "in utero" makes a two-celled fertilized egg (zygote) a person. Not only is this constitutionally questionable, it causes the legislation to get mired in the abortion debate. The Motherhood Protection Act is an effective middle ground compromise that can protect both the woman and the unborn child without leaving the bill open to a constitutional challenge.

"If Congress is serious about protecting a mother and her unborn child, they would pass the Motherhood Protection Act," said Lofgren. "However, the Republican leadership appears to be using the tragedy of violence against women to further their pro-life agenda. It is apparent from their delay in reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act and their cuts in domestic abuse funds that they are only concerned about violence against women when it furthers their agenda."

Julie Fulcher of The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence has come out in opposition to the UVVA because it "is not designed to protect women…. The result is that the crime committed against a pregnant woman is no longer about the woman victimized by violence." They are concerned that the legislation will divert the attention of the justice system away from violence against women.


.
.
.

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-18-2007
Fri, 01-11-2008 - 11:05am

This is just disgusting and barbaric behavior on behalf of the Chinese Government (not surprised!).


Infanticide, kidnapping, aggravated assault, human rights violations, etc.


I wish the UN actually had teeth.


iVillage Member
Registered: 04-15-2006
Fri, 01-11-2008 - 11:32am

"In a blow against the state's brutally imposed one-child policy, she and her husband are claiming danmages against the authorities, saying that officials acted unlawfully."


This whole situation is very sad.

Photobucket 

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 01-11-2008 - 4:57pm

This is heartbreaking.