By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Nevada’s unique law, criminalizing the use of drugs to end a pregnancy after 24 weeks, is the sole statute of its kind in the nation. This law led to the conviction of Patience Rousseau, whose case has now concluded with a $100,000 settlement from the state for her ordeal. Rousseau’s conviction, initially for felony manslaughter under the 1911 statute, was vacated due to ineffective counsel, highlighting the law’s punitive nature toward women. Advocates argue this Nevada law is uniquely harsh, with other states typically penalizing medical providers rather than pregnant individuals themselves for late-term abortions.
Read the original article here
It’s hard to fathom the journey of a woman named Rousseau, who, after experiencing a stillbirth in 2018, found herself facing felony manslaughter charges under a law dating back to 1911. This is not just a legal case; it’s a stark illustration of how outdated laws can inflict immense suffering, leading to a $100,000 payout from Nevada, a sum that feels woefully inadequate given the emotional and personal cost.
Rousseau, then known as Patience Frazier, delivered a stillborn baby she named Abel, burying him in her backyard. Just forty days later, she was arrested. The notion of being charged with manslaughter for a stillbirth, especially when the emotional toll of such a loss is already devastating, is frankly astonishing and deeply disturbing. The idea that law enforcement officers would carry out such an arrest, and prosecutors would pursue charges, is difficult to comprehend in any reasonable sense.
Nevada law currently permits abortions for any reason up to 24 weeks of gestation, with exceptions for the life or health of the pregnant person after that point. This seems, on the surface, like a law that acknowledges the complexities of pregnancy. However, in Rousseau’s case, the circumstances highlight the devastating consequences when such laws intersect with deeply problematic legal interpretations and societal pressures.
Rousseau had reportedly scheduled a legal abortion, but a car breakdown prevented her from attending the appointment. In an attempt to end the pregnancy naturally, she researched methods and subsequently consumed large amounts of cinnamon and lifted heavy objects. Crucially, prosecutors were unable to definitively prove that these actions, lacking scientific links to causing miscarriages, were the direct cause of her stillbirth.
However, Rousseau also struggled with a substance use disorder, having used methamphetamines and marijuana during her pregnancy. Prosecutors argued that she took these substances specifically to induce a miscarriage, thereby violating the state’s law. The defense suggested she might have been using drugs due to her substance abuse disorder, rather than with the sole intent of ending the pregnancy.
The discovery of the baby’s body in the backyard likely allowed authorities to determine that the pregnancy was beyond the 24-week legal limit for abortion, and the focus shifted to her drug use as the alleged method of inducing a miscarriage. This presents a deeply unsettling dilemma: was her substance use a symptom of her disorder, or a deliberate act to end the pregnancy? The law, as it was applied, seemed to punish her for the latter, regardless of the complex realities of her situation.
The intersection of deeply held religious and political beliefs with legal proceedings can lead to outcomes that feel profoundly unjust. The argument that drug use was intended to induce a miscarriage, when the individual may have been struggling with addiction and potentially seeking to end a pregnancy due to that very struggle, is a painful paradox. The notion of “pro-life” rhetoric often feels less about protecting life and more about controlling women’s bodies, as exemplified by such cases.
The fact that Rousseau pleaded guilty to manslaughter charges on the advice of her public defender, and served two years in prison, before her conviction was later vacated due to ineffective assistance of counsel and her case was finally dismissed, paints a picture of a deeply flawed legal process. It suggests she may have gone to prison not because of a proven crime, but because of a plea deal offered under duress, a consequence of a legal system that seemed to offer little genuine recourse.
The $100,000 payout, while an acknowledgment of wrongdoing, doesn’t fully address the profound loss of hope, the years of imprisonment, and the enduring mental anguish such an experience would inflict. This case, and others like it where women have faced legal repercussions for pregnancy outcomes, raises critical questions about the state’s role in reproductive health decisions and the very definition of justice for women.
The experience of women facing similar circumstances, including those still imprisoned under outdated laws or who have had to fight for basic rights concerning their pregnancies, underscores that this is not an isolated incident but a pattern. It highlights a disturbing trend where the state’s intervention in personal reproductive choices can lead to severe and prolonged suffering, often rooted in a desire to control rather than support.
Ultimately, this case is a somber reminder of the devastating consequences when laws fail to consider the human element, when societal biases cloud judgment, and when the pursuit of justice becomes entangled with moralistic agendas that seek to punish rather than heal. The loss of hope is immense, and while the monetary compensation is a step, it can never fully restore what was taken.