Opinion

The Indiana foeticide case: why Purvi Patel's Indianness matters

China and India serve as poster children in the evangelical crusades against abortion.

US laws on foeticide were historically designed with male perpetrators in mind – typically a husband or boyfriend who tried to violently end an unwanted pregnancy by harming the pregnant woman in question. On Monday, though, a judge in South Bend, Indiana, showed that states have begun to use foeticide laws against those whom the laws were intended to protect.

Thirty three-year-old Purvi Patel, who claims she suffered a miscarriage, was sentenced to 20 years in prison on charges of foeticide and neglecting a dependent. She is the first example of a pregnant woman whom a state has successfully charged, convicted, and sentenced for intentional miscarriage. Indiana prosecutors pursued a similar line in 2011 when they charged and imprisoned a Chinese woman, Bei-Bei Shuai, with attempting foeticide; unlike Patel, Shuai reached a plea deal. I will return to the implications of the Purvi Patel case for reproductive rights activism at the end of this article, but I first want to explore a less-examined question: what does it mean that the two foeticide cases that this state has pursued involve women of Indian and Chinese origins?

Racist national narratives

When I taught the topic of global reproductive justice several years ago at Georgetown University, a flagship Catholic institution, I frequently noticed that many of my students became especially animated when we turned our attention to China and India. Examples of state-sponsored coercive population control, such as China’s post-1980s one-child policy and India’s experiment with forced vasectomies in the 1970s, seemed to resonate as archetypal abuses in their minds. Indeed many students already knew about the problem of female foeticide and infanticide in these countries; it was clear to me that for those who had been raised within strong Catholic anti-reproductive rights environments, China and India were widely maligned. These countries were understood as places with a criminal predilection for sacrificing life. The very real and pernicious social problems of misogyny and son preference compounded by economic inequality in China and India, all of which local activists have struggled against, had been displaced by accounts that equated national identities with these national crimes.

This backdrop helps me make some sense of the Indiana case, and what is a shocking criminalisation of two clearly suffering pregnant women. I believe that Indiana prosecutors have been emboldened in charging the Chinese and the Indian woman of foeticide because of how China and India serve as poster children in global evangelical crusades against abortion. It is vital to note that in both these legal cases, the defendants held that they did not intentionally end their pregnancies. Shuai argued that she tried to commit suicide because of her depression, and Patel argues that she experienced a miscarriage. But their protests have not carried weight; I sense it is easier for jurors, judges, and indeed the public to suspect these two women of having infanticidal tendencies because of the narratives that circulate in so-called “pro-life” circles about their countries of origin.

Forced motherhood

Setting aside the racist national narratives that this case illustrates, let us imagine for a moment the plight of women who might indeed seek to terminate unwanted pregnancies. It is a sign of how deeply eroded reproductive rights have become in the contemporary US that foeticide has become synonymous with infanticide. In the text of the case summary and the affidavits filed in court, the language used to describe the foetus is consistently that used to describe children: “dependents” and “child”. Patel has been charged with “Neglect Of Dependent Resulting In Death, of a victim less than 14 years”. The complex wrangling over the gestational age of her foetus – whether it was 24, 25, 26 weeks – matters only because the viability of the foetus has become the centrepiece in such cases; the actual intention and willingness of the pregnant woman to become a mother has been completely sidelined.

Interestingly, and perhaps scarily, this case took the trajectory it did because of a zealous doctor, Dr Kelly MacGuire, who is a member of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstericians. This was the doctor called in to examine Patel for a second opinion at the emergency room, who, after examining her (and not, importantly, the foetus), declared that she was 30 weeks pregnant and set off himself to search in dumpsters where Patel said she had placed the dead foetus. His methods and authority in making determinations about the age of the foetus have been challenged by other doctors, as have the methods used by the autopsy physician Dr Joseph Prahlow. But these challenges remain a conversation about the foetus, rather than about Patel’s rights.

Even the most forceful petition that is circulating about Purvi Patel has defended her on technical grounds: it mentions that there was no evidence that she had taken abortifacient drugs (as the prosecutors claim), and maintains that she experienced a home stillbirth. Her right to end a pregnancy that she might not have wanted has receded to the background. My Catholic students agonised a great deal about forced sterilisation in China and India. I think we need to also renew worries about the creeping ascendance of forced motherhood in the US.

Ashwini Tambe is Associate Professor in the Department of Women’s Studies at the University of Maryland-College Park. She is also the Editorial Director of the journal Feminist Studies

We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content  BY 

As India turns 70, London School of Economics asks some provocative questions

Is India ready to become a global superpower?

Meaningful changes have always been driven by the right, but inconvenient questions. As India completes 70 years of its sovereign journey, we could do two things – celebrate, pay our token tributes and move on, or take the time to reflect and assess if our course needs correction. The ‘India @ 70: LSE India Summit’, the annual flagship summit of the LSE (London School of Economics) South Asia Centre, is posing some fundamental but complex questions that define our future direction as a nation. Through an honest debate – built on new research, applied knowledge and ground realities – with an eclectic mix of thought leaders and industry stalwarts, this summit hopes to create a thought-provoking discourse.

From how relevant (or irrelevant) is our constitutional framework, to how we can beat the global one-upmanship games, from how sincere are business houses in their social responsibility endeavours to why water is so crucial to our very existence as a strong nation, these are some crucial questions that the event will throw up and face head-on, even as it commemorates the 70th anniversary of India’s independence.

Is it time to re-look at constitution and citizenship in India?

The Constitution of India is fundamental to the country’s identity as a democratic power. But notwithstanding its historical authority, is it perhaps time to examine its relevance? The Constitution was drafted at a time when independent India was still a young entity. So granting overwhelming powers to the government may have helped during the early years. But in the current times, they may prove to be more discriminatory than egalitarian. Our constitution borrowed laws from other countries and continues to retain them, while the origin countries have updated them since then. So, do we need a complete overhaul of the constitution? An expert panel led by Dr Mukulika Banerjee of LSE, including political and economic commentator S Gurumurthy, Madhav Khosla of Columbia University, Niraja Gopal Jayal of JNU, Chintan Chandrachud the author of the book Balanced Constitutionalism and sociologist, legal researcher and Director of Council for Social Development Kalpana Kannabiran will seek answers to this.

Is CSR simply forced philanthropy?

While India pioneered the mandatory minimum CSR spend, has it succeeded in driving impact? Corporate social responsibility has many dynamics at play. Are CSR initiatives mere tokenism for compliance? Despite government guidelines and directives, are CSR activities well-thought out initiatives, which are monitored and measured for impact? The CSR stipulations have also spawned the proliferation of ambiguous NGOs. The session, ‘Does forced philanthropy work – CSR in India?” will raise these questions of intent, ethics and integrity. It will be moderated by Professor Harry Barkema and have industry veterans such as Mukund Rajan (Chairman, Tata Council for Community Initiatives), Onkar S Kanwar (Chairman and CEO, Apollo Tyres), Anu Aga (former Chairman, Thermax) and Rahul Bajaj (Chairman, Bajaj Group) on the panel.

Can India punch above its weight to be considered on par with other super-powers?

At 70, can India mobilize its strengths and galvanize into the role of a serious power player on the global stage? The question is related to the whole new perception of India as a dominant power in South Asia rather than as a Third World country, enabled by our foreign policies, defense strategies and a buoyant economy. The country’s status abroad is key in its emergence as a heavyweight but the foreign service officers’ cadre no longer draws top talent. Is India equipped right for its aspirations? The ‘India Abroad: From Third World to Regional Power’ panel will explore India’s foreign policy with Ashley Tellis, Meera Shankar (Former Foreign Secretary), Kanwal Sibal (Former Foreign Secretary), Jayant Prasad and Rakesh Sood.

Are we under-estimating how critical water is in India’s race ahead?

At no other time has water as a natural resource assumed such a big significance. Studies estimate that by 2025 the country will become ‘water–stressed’. While water has been the bone of contention between states and controlling access to water, a source for political power, has water security received the due attention in economic policies and development plans? Relevant to the central issue of water security is also the issue of ‘virtual water’. Virtual water corresponds to the water content (used) in goods and services, bulk of which is in food grains. Through food grain exports, India is a large virtual net exporter of water. In 2014-15, just through export of rice, India exported 10 trillion litres of virtual water. With India’s water security looking grim, are we making the right economic choices? Acclaimed author and academic from the Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi, Amita Bavisar will moderate the session ‘Does India need virtual water?’

Delve into this rich confluence of ideas and more at the ‘India @ 70: LSE India Summit’, presented by Apollo Tyres in association with the British Council and organized by Teamworks Arts during March 29-31, 2017 at the India Habitat Centre, New Delhi. To catch ‘India @ 70’ live online, register here.

At the venue, you could also visit the Partition Museum. Dedicated to the memory of one of the most conflict-ridden chapters in our country’s history, the museum will exhibit a unique archive of rare photographs, letters, press reports and audio recordings from The Partition Museum, Amritsar.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of Teamwork Arts and not by the Scroll editorial team.