WV Prosecuting Attorneys Association issues statement on potential for prosecution against women who miscarry
The statement below comes after Raleigh County Prosecuting Attorney Tom Truman said that a number of criminal charges under state code, including felonies, could be levied against a woman who flushes fetal remains, buries them, or otherwise disposes of remains following an involuntary abortion, also called a miscarriage.
Attorney for pregnancy rights group says West Virginia law protects women who miscarry
Truman added that he would be unwilling to prosecute such cases.
The WVPAA statement is below was given in an attempt at 'Setting the Record Straight on Miscarriages and Criminal Law':
The West Virginia Prosecuting Attorneys Association (WVPAA) wishes to clarify that recent public statements made regarding this subject do not reflect the consensus, official position, or legal interpretation of the Association, its Officers, Board members, or members of its Legislative Committee.
This is not a subject matter that has been widely discussed among West Virginia prosecutors, nor does it need to be, and any comments that are not from the WVPAA were made without coordination or endorsement from the WVPAA. The WVPAA wants to make abundantly clear that any assertion that individuals who experience the unfortunate event of a miscarriage in West Virginia should be notifying law enforcement or face potential criminal prosecution is incorrect and not supported by West Virginia law.
The WVPAA does not agree with or support the idea that experiencing a miscarriage could, or should, trigger criminal liability. Such a position is contrary to both the law and the values held by prosecutors across our state, who remain committed to justice, compassion, and the appropriate application of criminal statutes.
We urge the public and media to rely on verified, accurate legal information and to contact the WVPAA with any questions about prosecutorial perspectives or the interpretation of West Virginia law.
West Virginia Prosecuting Attorneys Association
On Tuesday, June 3, 2025, an attorney for Pregnancy Justice, a New York group which defends women who face criminal charges based on pregnancy, agreed that there is a push among some prosecutors throughout the U.S. to file criminal charges against women for pregnancy loss and behaviors during pregnancy.
'Prosecutors wield a lot of discretion,' said Kulsoom Ijaz, senior policy counsel for Pregnancy Justice. 'There are countless unjust and unfounded prosecutions every day in this country.'
Ijaz also said that the legal framework in West Virginia also does not support a prosecutor bringing a charge against a miscarrying woman who flushes or otherwise disposes of fetal remains.
'West Virginia does not have a broad fetal personhood law that grants fetuses Constitutional rights,' said Ijaz. 'Those laws cannot then be taken and extended to fertilized eggs, embryos and fetuses in West Virginia.'Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Wealth tax for school funding initiative starts signature collection with opposition pouncing
A copy of the petition to be circulated by the Invest in MI Kids Ballot Proposal Coalition. July 31, 2025 | Photo By Kyle Davidson/Michigan Advance The constitutional amendment to implement a new tax on wealthy Michiganders is still aiming for the 2026 ballot after facing some initial setbacks and new attacks, with its signature collection driving kicking off on Friday. Members of Invest in MI Kids said it started collecting signatures last week using the 100-word summary that was approved June 27 by the Michigan Board of State Canvassers. That has opened up further complications for the effort, as the board on July 10 walked back the approval for the previous 100-word summary and then deadlocked on a revised summary at their July 31 meeting. Initiative officials said Friday that the effort which resulted in the board deadlocking was just one part of well-funded right-wing attacks against the proposal, which is estimated to generate nearly $1 billion annually. But those attacks keep coming. The Coalition to Stop the Business and Family Tax Hike, an organization opposed to the Invest in MI Kids initiative, issued a cease and desist motion to prevent the group from collecting its signatures. Jase Bolger, CEO of West Michigan Policy Forum and a former Republican Michigan House speaker, said in a statement that the amendment would hurt small businesses – even though the initiative was aimed at the wealthiest Michiganders. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX 'I applaud the move today by the Coalition to Stop the Business and Family Tax Hike,' Bolger said. 'They filed a cease and desist motion to stop the signature gathering for an unapproved ballot initiative. Because, the proponents of this devastating proposal are using language that is misleading. Voters should not be fooled.' In response, Imani Foster, a spokesperson for the Invest MI Kids initiative, told Michigan Advance that the coalition is focused on the task at hand. 'While we're busy engaging Michiganders, together with our thousands of volunteers, we won't be distracted by meaningless letters from big money Washington lawyers,' Foster said. The group also noted its belief that the board had no authority under Michigan law to rescind its prior approval of the petition summary language. 'The petitions currently being circulated by Invest in MI Kids include a petition summary that the director of elections has deemed compliant with the Michigan Election Law twice and that the Board of Canvassers has approved as compliant once,' Foster added. Solve the daily Crossword
Newsweek
9 hours ago
- Newsweek
Apple Users Get Update on How Their Private Data is Being Used
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Apple will no longer be required to provide international law enforcement access to private data after the U.K. agreed to rescind an investigatory power mandate. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said that the U.K. would drop its mandate for Apple to provide an encrypted data "back door," after the policy came under criticism from the tech industry. Newsweek contacted Apple for more information on the agreement via email. Why It Matters The reported withdrawal touches on core questions about cross-border law enforcement powers, the security of encrypted personal data stored in cloud backups, and the potential for government access to private communications and photos of U.S. citizens. Apple has publicly framed its approach to user privacy around on-device processing and end-to-end encryption for many services, which the company said limited its ability to access the contents of messages and certain stored data. What To Know In a statement on Tuesday, Gabbard said that the White House had negotiated an agreement with the U.K. that means the "back door" would no longer be necessary. "Over the past few months, I've been working closely with our partners in the U.K, alongside @POTUS and @VP, to ensure Americans' private data remains private and our Constitutional rights and civil liberties are protected," Gabbard wrote on X. "As a result, the U.K. has agreed to drop its mandate for Apple to provide a 'back door' that would have enabled access to the protected encrypted data of American citizens and encroached on our civil liberties." Stock Image: The Apple logo. Stock Image: The Apple logo. Getty Images The U.K. government's order sought a technical capability that would have allowed access to encrypted iPhone backups, potentially including photos and messages that users stored in cloud services. Apple said it built privacy controls into its devices, including on-device processing, App Tracking Transparency, App Privacy Report, and end-to-end encryption for Messages, and described Advanced Data Protection as a user-enabled setting that expanded encryption for iCloud data. Apple also provided guidance about App Store privacy details and the Privacy Nutrition Labels that developers must disclose on app product pages to show what data apps may collect and whether it is linked to users. What People Are Saying Apple said in a February statement: "ADP protects iCloud data with end-to-end encryption, which means the data can only be decrypted by the user who owns it, and only on their trusted devices. We are gravely disappointed that the protections provided by ADP will not be available to our customers in the U.K. given the continuing rise of data breaches and other threats to customer privacy. Enhancing the security of cloud storage with end-to-end encryption is more urgent than ever before. "Apple remains committed to offering our users the highest level of security for their personal data and are hopeful that we will be able to do so in the future in the United Kingdom. As we have said many times before, we have never built a backdoor or master key to any of our products or services and we never will." What Happens Next The White House will continue to work with international partners and tech companies to resolve disputes of this nature.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Judge appears skeptical about lawsuit challenging 'Alligator Alcatraz'
A federal judge appeared skeptical about a lawsuit challenging the temporary detention facility in the Everglades known as "Alligator Alcatraz" during a court hearing on Monday, despite plaintiffs' claims that the Trump administration and the state of Florida have run "roughshod over constitutional concerns" in their rush to build the controversial facility. A group of detainees at the facility is asking U.S. District Judge Rodolfo Armando Ruiz II, a Trump appointee, to issue an order that would require authorities to expand legal access at the controversial facility, where the detainees say they lack a standard way to communicate with their attorneys, and that they are being held without any formal criminal or immigration charges against them, making it challenging, if not impossible, for them to seek release on bond. Judge Ruiz told plaintiffs' lawyers that their lawsuit might need to be transferred to a different court, remarking that the case suffers from a "breakdown" over venue. The judge also struggled to articulate how he could craft an order that would remedy the concerns raised by the detainees. MORE: 'It's like you're dead alive': Families, advocates allege inhumane conditions at 'Alligator Alcatraz' While legal access at the facility has improved since the facility's early days, lawyers for the detainees argued that their clients still lack a consistent way to contact their lawyers confidentially. "The government has been in such a rush to build and detain people at the facility that it has run roughshod over constitutional concerns," said ACLU attorney Eunice Cho. "The irreparable harm here is extraordinary." During the hearing, Judge Ruiz appeared receptive to the ongoing issues raised by the plaintiffs but acknowledged that the access issues were "a natural byproduct of a facility being stood up very quickly." ACLU attorneys said that at least one person was wrongly deported from the facility after failing to contact their lawyers, and claimed that a mentally disabled man was encouraged to sign a voluntary departure form without an attorney. They also claimed that one lawyer had to wait three weeks to contact their client. According to Judge Ruiz, the improvements to the access have "narrowed" the lawsuit, but a "live controversy with the nature of access" continues. He added that granting the relief requested by the detainees would be challenging, given that the issue is not about whether they have access to their attorneys, but the degree of their access. "What am I going to put in an order?" he said. "You'd need to have some metric. It's not necessarily that it can't be done, but I think you can understand why crafting a scope of relief on the ground [is challenging]." The judge noted that he might need to transfer the case out of the Southern District of Florida because the alleged legal claims stem directly from the facility in the Everglades, which is in the Middle District of Florida. Plaintiffs initially tried to tie the case to the Southern District of Florida by relying on the federal defendants based in Miami, rather than the state defendants who oversee running the detention center in the Everglades. "That's where the rubber hits the road," Judge Ruiz said. "If I can get to the merits, I will. If I have to transfer, I will." MORE: Meet the Native American tribe that beat the Trump administration in court -- for now Lawyers for the Trump administration encouraged Judge Ruiz to toss the case, arguing that the detainees are using their First Amendment claims to challenge "the decision of the attorney general of DHS to use the alligator Alcatraz as a detention facility." "I think the best argument they're attempting to advance today on the federal side is that this is almost a Trojan horse [that] the First Amendment argument is all window dressing, that at its core, this is really attempting to challenge kind of the underlying immigration determinations or detention determinations being made," Judge Ruiz said. In court filings prior to the hearing, plaintiffs argued that "Alligator Alcatraz" exists in a legal "black hole" with no clearly defined immigration court to challenge their detentions, but the Trump administration recently designated the Krome North Service Processing Center near Miami as the immigration court with responsibility for the facility. This is the second major lawsuit challenging the operation of "Alligator Alcatraz," as another federal judge is considering blocking the use of the facility over environmental concerns. U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams, after a multi-day hearing earlier this month, issued a temporary restraining order blocking further construction at the facility, and is now considering a broader order barring use of the facility.
