On June 10, Patel text messaged her friend about ordering abortion pills from an “international pharmacy,” and when the friend asked Patel three more times to see a doctor, she replied, “I’d rather not even go to a doc. I just want to get this over with,” Herring said.
Then on July 13, Patel text messaged her friend, “Just lost the baby. I’m gonna clean up the bathroom and then go to Moe’s.” Note: Moe's is the name of the restaurant her parents own. Also, THIS TEXT WAS SENT THE DAY BEFORE SHE WENT TO THE HOSPITAL.
That’s where investigators have said they ultimately found the baby, in a dumpster, wrapped in plastic bags.
Her friend also repeatedly urged her to go to a doctor starting in April, but she refused. I think this adds a layer to the conversation and wanted to mention it because these these text message were not mentioned in this article or many of the other articles I've read within the past few days. Only our local media seems to have actually shared the content of these text messages. I suspect they are a major reason why the jury chose to convict.

Indiana Ind. Code Ann. § 35-41-1-25 defines serious bodily injury as bodily injury that causes the loss of a fetus.
Ind. Code Ann. § 35-42-1-3 defines voluntary manslaughter as a person who knowingly or intentionally kills a fetus that has attained viability while acting under sudden heat and provides penalties.
Ind. Code Ann. § 35-42-1-4 defines involuntary manslaughter to include a person who kills a fetus that has attained viability while committing or attempting to commit specified felonies that pose a risk of serious bodily injury, specified misdemeanors that pose a risk of serious bodily injury or battery. The law was amended in 2010 by Ind. Acts, P.L. 7 (SB 71) to include a violation of Ind. Code Ann. 9-30-5-1 et seq., which define operating a vehicle while intoxicated. The law refers to Ind. Code Ann. § 16-18-2-365, which defines viability as the ability of a fetus to live outside the mother's womb.
Ind. Code Ann. § 35-42-1-6 specifies that a person who knowingly or intentionally terminates a human pregnancy with an intention other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead fetus commits feticide; the law does not apply to an abortion. The law was amended in 2009 to change feticide from a Class C to a Class B felony. (2009 Ind. Acts, P.L. 40, SB 236)
Ind. Code Ann. § 35-42-2-1.5 defines aggravated battery as a person who knowingly or intentionally inflicts injury on a person that causes the loss of a fetus.
Ind. Code Ann. § 35-50-2-9(b)(16) allows the state to seek either a death sentence or a sentence of life imprisonment without parole for murder by alleging the victim of the murder was pregnant and the murder resulted in the intentional killing of a fetus that has attained viability.
Ind. Code Ann. § 35-50-2-16 (2009) allows the state to seek an additional fixed term of imprisonment if a person, while committing or attempting to commit murder, caused the termination of a pregnancy. Prosecution of the murder or attempted murder and the enhancement of the penalty for that crime does not require proof that the person committing or attempting to commit the murder had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim was pregnant or that the defendant intended to cause the termination of a pregnancy. The additional consecutive term of imprisonment may be between six and 20 years. (2009 Ind. Acts, P.L. 40, SB 236)

ST. JOSEPH COUNTY, Ind. -- The sentencing of Purvi Patel, who was charged with child neglect, has been pushed back to later in March.

Purvi Patel, 33, made headlines back in July 2013 when her baby's body was found in a dumpster.

She was convicted of using abortion drugs she bought online without a prescription to terminate a secret pregnancy.

But a drug designed to deal with a fetus the "size of a jellybean" didn't work at her advanced stage of pregnancy.

The child neglect charge carries a maximum of 50 years behind bars. The feticide charge carries a maximum of 20 years.

Neither has a mandatory minimum sentence.

The sentencing is expected to take place on March 30.

ST. JOSEPH COUNTY, Ind. -- Since her dead newborn baby was found in a Mishawaka dumpster in July of 2013, Purvi Patel has been out on bond.

Today, she was taken into custody and ordered to start serving a 20 year executed sentence on child neglect and feticide charges.

In this case, prison was an option, but not a requirement.

While the defense argued for home detention or community corrections, prosecutors warned that would diminish the seriousness of the crime and the age of the victim. “All cases involving child victims are challenging,” said Deputy Prosecutor Mark Roule after today’s sentencing hearing. “I have been, I’m in my 13th year. There are obviously officers that have been doing it a lot longer and the cases with children and particularly the cases with babies are the ones that people remember. They’re the ones that may wake you up in the middle of the night.”

Patel had no criminal history and she lives with, and cares for her parents and infirm grandparents in Granger. Still, the State of Indiana imposes regulations on abortions and it was argued that Patel ignored them for all the wrong reasons.

“You know she lived in a nice home. Had a Cadillac SRX vehicle, so she was not an indigent person who could not afford medical care,” said Roule.

Yet Patel never went to a doctor about a pregnancy she tried to keep to herself, and tried to end by herself with prescription abortion drugs she purchased off the internet.

When that attempted abortion instead resulted in a live birth, Patel “treated the child, literally, as a piece of trash,” said St. Joseph Superior Court Judge Elizabeth Hurley, who said Patel had “abused her position of trust.”

No one is condoning what happened. No one’s condoning the actions, the dumpster and that,” said Rev. Marie Siroky who attended today’s hearing. “But I think the other part you heard from the judge and from the prosecutor, what they said, they felt she ‘was thinking,’ no one knows what anybody is thinking.”

Rev. Siroky thinks the Patel case sends a dangerous message at a time when the availability of abortion pills has increased on the internet, and the number of abortion clinics in Indiana keeps dwindling. “And we may be very close to getting only two abortion clinics in the state, or in two cities, Indianapolis and Bloomington. Long waiting periods, this is a set up for this to happen.”

Sue Ellen Braunlin is with the Indiana Religious Coalition for Reproductive Justice who has been closely watching the Patel case. She claims it marks just the second time in Indiana history that a law written to protect pregnant women from third party violence, has been used to prosecute women trying to abort. “The expanded application of the feticide laws, it will go on to criminalize women who have problems with their pregnancy or who intend to end their pregnancy on their own.”

Judge Hurley actually sentenced Patel to 30 years on the child neglect charge and six years on the Feticide count. Both sentences will run concurrently. 10 years of the child neglect sentence was suspended, and five years of probation added to the mix. Patel’s effective sentence of 20 years will be served under a set of old guidelines that allow for one day’s worth of good time credit for each day served. That means Patel’s time behind bars could be trimmed to as little as 10 years.

When that attempted abortion instead resulted in a live birth, Patel “treated the child, literally, as a piece of trash,” said St. Joseph Superior Court Judge Elizabeth Hurley, who said Patel had “abused her position of trust.”

 Orlanth wrote:
What is the termination limit in the US.

Over here if a child is aborted post a 24 weeks it is considered murder, unless the health of the mother is a at stake.

This has long been considered a reasonable compromise.

However a miscarriage is not an abortion, for this case to make any sense the court must have decided it was an induced abortion.

However was this a miscarriage, or a premature birth. If it was a miscarriage no crime was committed. The defendant claimed to have had a miscarriage but the court has considered it a premature birth and subsequent neglect.

The article is missing something.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Damn, the U.S. are weird. Would anyone here defend this sentence?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Damn, the U.S. are weird. Would anyone here defend this sentence?

Which part of the sentence are you having difficulty with?

 d-usa wrote:
My main problem is the fact that she is guilty of neglecting a living breathing infant after it was born even though she had also already killed it while it was still a fetus.

Maybe the law is just really crappy at using medical terminology, but this seems like something that isn't possible.

Ind. Code Ann. § 35-42-1-6 specifies that a person who knowingly or intentionally terminates a human pregnancy with an intention other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead fetus commits feticide

Sec. 4. (a) A person having the care of a dependent, whether assumed voluntarily or because of a legal obligation, who knowingly or intentionally:
(1) places the dependent in a situation that endangers the dependent's life or health;
(2) abandons or cruelly confines the dependent;
(3) deprives the dependent of necessary support; or
(4) deprives the dependent of education as required by law;
commits neglect of a dependent, a Class D felony.

 KaptinBadrukk wrote:
WTF???

Miscarriage is not illegal.

 KaptinBadrukk wrote:
WTF???

Miscarriage is not illegal.

 CptJake wrote:

 KaptinBadrukk wrote:
WTF???

Miscarriage is not illegal.

Neither is reading what actually happened.

 Xenomancers wrote:
In my religion. Abortions are fine and even encouraged. You are hindering my religious freedom.

 Xenomancers wrote:
In my religion. Abortions are fine and even encouraged. You are hindering my religious freedom.

 KaptinBadrukk wrote:
WTF???

Miscarriage is not illegal.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
In my religion. Abortions are fine and even encouraged. You are hindering my religious freedom.

Thanks for the useful and insightful commentary.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Which part of the sentence are you having difficulty with?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Which part of the sentence are you having difficulty with?

I will take this as a yes. Woah. Mind blown.
To answer your question, the 20 years in prison.

 Frazzled wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 KaptinBadrukk wrote:
WTF???

Miscarriage is not illegal.

Neither is reading what actually happened.

Oh Snap!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
In my religion. Abortions are fine and even encouraged. You are hindering my religious freedom.

I'm trying to get certain provisions added that permit them retroactively for special people that tick me off, for instance people who like cats.

 CptJake wrote:
Is dumping a new born in the trash a lesser offense than smothering a 3 year old to death?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Is dumping a new born in the trash a lesser offense than smothering a 3 year old to death?

Yes.