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

Support our journalism by subscribing to Scroll+ here. We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content BY 

Tracing the formation of Al Qaeda and its path to 9/11

A new show looks at some of the crucial moments leading up to the attack.

“The end of the world war had bought America victory but not security” - this quote from Lawrence Wright’s Pulitzer-Prize winning book, ‘The Looming Tower’, gives a sense of the growing threat to America from Al Qaeda and the series of events that led to 9/11. Based on extensive interviews, including with Bin Laden’s best friend in college and the former White House counterterrorism chief, ‘The Looming Tower’ provides an intimate perspective of the 9/11 attack.

Lawrence Wright chronicles the formative years of Al Qaeda, giving an insight in to Bin Laden’s war against America. The book covers in detail, the radicalisation of Osama Bin Laden and his association with Ayman Al Zawahri, an Egyptian doctor who preached that only violence could change history. In an interview with Amazon, Wright shared, “I talked to 600-something people, but many of those people I talked to again and again for a period of five years, some of them dozens of times.” Wright’s book was selected by TIME as one of the all-time 100 best nonfiction books for its “thoroughly researched and incisively written” account of the road to 9/11 and is considered an essential read for understanding Islam’s war on the West as it developed in the Middle East.

‘The Looming Tower’ also dwells on the response of key US officials to the rising Al Qaeda threat, particularly exploring the turf wars between the FBI and the CIA. This has now been dramatized in a 10-part mini-series of the same name. Adapted by Dan Futterman (of Foxcatcher fame), the series mainly focuses on the hostilities between the FBI and the CIA. Some major characters are based on real people - such as John O’ Neill (FBI’s foul-mouthed counterterrorism chief played by Jeff Daniels) and Ali Soufan (O’ Neill’s Arabic-speaking mentee who successfully interrogated captured Islamic terrorists after 9/11, played by Tahar Rahim). Some are composite characters, such as Martin Schmidt (O’Neill’s CIA counterpart, played by Peter Sarsgaard).

The series, most crucially, captures just how close US intelligence agencies had come to foiling Al Qaeda’s plans, just to come up short due to internal turf wars. It follows the FBI and the CIA as they independently follow intelligence leads in the crises leading up to 9/11 – the US Embassy bombings in East Africa and the attack on US warship USS Cole in Yemen – but fail to update each other. The most glaring example is of how the CIA withheld critical information – Al Qaeda operatives being hunted by the FBI had entered the United States - under the misguided notion that the CIA was the only government agency authorised to deal with terrorism threats.

The depth of information in the book has translated into a realistic recreation of the pre-9/11 years on screen. The drama is even interspersed with actual footage from the 9/11 conspiracy, attack and the 2004 Commission Hearing, linking together the myriad developments leading up to 9/11 with chilling hindsight. Watch the trailer of this gripping show below.

Play

The Looming Tower is available for streaming on Amazon Prime Video, along with a host of Amazon originals and popular movies and TV shows. To enjoy unlimited ad free streaming anytime, anywhere, subscribe to Amazon Prime Video.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of Amazon Prime Video and not by the Scroll editorial team.