There was a local case where a pregnant woman killed her unborn child by intentionally shooting herself in the stomach. The woman was charged with illegally inducing an abortion; however, those charges were dismissed since the law applied to third parties, such as doctors. In today’s Pilot, there is a letter to the editor that warns of something similar happening should Ballot Issue #1, the so-called Marriage Amendment, passes.
A legal lesson for voters in the Tammy Skinner case
All voters should have learned a lesson from the dismissal of the charges against Tammy Skinner, the woman who shot herself and intentionally killed her unborn child but could not be charged under the existing statues because of the wording of the statute.
We lawyers know that when it comes to statutory construction, what was intended is irrelevant. It is what the statute says that counts. Yes, we were all outraged by her admissions, but the judge was correct in dismissing the charges based on the wording of the statute.
It is now up to the legislature to change the language to make it clear what was intended. Similarly, although supporters of the proposed marriage amendment say that it is not intended to invalidate perfectly legitimate contracts and agreements between unmarried partners, the broad wording of the amendment could very easily be read to do exactly that.
Judges have to decide cases based on the statutes as written, not as intended. The proposed amendment is not well drafted, and for that reason, should not be passed. Otherwise, we will end up with a Tammy Skinner-type situation very quickly, and we will have to go through this process all over again.
Josephine Ursini Krantz
Virginia Beach
Vote NO on Ballot Issue #1
Technorati Tags: Marshall Newman Amendment, Virginia Marriage Amendment
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
I assume the law in question is § 18.2-71: “Except as provided in other sections of this article, if any person administer to, or cause to be taken by a woman, any drug or other thing, or use means, with intent to destroy her unborn child, or to produce abortion or miscarriage, and thereby destroy such child, or produce such abortion or miscarriage, he shall be guilty of a Class 4 felony.”
As this ABC News article opines (http://abcnews.go.com/US/LegalCenter/story?id=2585102), it all depends on the definition of ANY PERSON. According to the judge, the mother doesn’t qualify.
Either way, this is a woman who has a clear insanity defense. She needs help, and I hope she gets it.
Jack,
Is this one of those “liberal judges” that you frequently talk about? Just in case you missed the point, this just proves that all laws are open to interpretation, INCLUDING the Marshall Newman Amendment…