WV Prosecuting Attorneys Association issues statement on potential for prosecution against women who miscarry
CHARLESTON, WV (WVNS) — WV Prosecuting Attorneys Association issues statement on the 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
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
West Virginia Prosecutor Warns Women That a Miscarriage Could Lead to Criminal Charge: ‘It's a Different World Now'
West Virginia Prosecuting Attorney Tom Truman warned the public that having a miscarriage could lead to criminal charges in the state, where there's a strict ban on abortion He claims that some prosecutors may try to charge a person for a miscarriage using state laws related to the disposal of human remains Reproductive experts say it's a mistake to invite law enforcement into your reproductive lifeA West Virginia prosecutor is sending out a warning that having a miscarriage could lead to serious legal repercussions in the state. Shortly after the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022, West Virginia enacted a near-total ban on abortion. The procedure is illegal in the state with exceptions for a nonviable pregnancy or medical emergency. Additionally, survivors of rape and incest can receive an abortion only if a police report has been filed. Licensed medical professionals who violate the law by performing or inducing abortions can face felony charges, punishable by three to 10 years in prison. The law currently does not criminalize the pregnant person for having an abortion. Raleigh County Prosecuting Attorney Tom Truman explained that in conversations with fellow prosecutors several years ago, some expressed that they could charge a person who had a miscarriage using state laws related to the disposal of human remains. 'I thought these guys were just chewing on a Dreamsicle,' he told CNN, noting that he personally would never prosecute someone for a miscarriage. ! Never miss a story — sign up for to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer, from celebrity news to compelling human interest stories. However, Truman said West Virginia's legal statutes include definitions that are 'pretty broad-ranging' and with the end of Roe v. Wade, prosecutors may interpret that the law means people who miscarry could face criminal charges, including felonies. 'It's a different world now, and there's a lot of discretion that prosecutors have, and some of them have agendas where they would like to make you an example,' he said. 'What's changed is, Roe isn't there anymore, and so that may embolden prosecutors in some cases. I'm just trying to say, be careful.' Kim Mutcherson — a professor of law at Rutgers Law School who specializes in reproductive justice — told the outlet that grey areas surrounding reproductive laws will ultimately be dangerous for pregnant people. 'It's always a mistake to invite law enforcement into your reproductive life,' she said. 'If they then decide, 'no, it actually wasn't a miscarriage, this was somebody who took pills,' or whatever sort of thing that they want to conjure up, then all of a sudden it goes from 'here's this poor woman who had a miscarriage' to 'here's a person who we're going to start to prosecute.' ' Brittany Fonteno, CEO of the National Abortion Federation, encouraged anyone experiencing a miscarriage to contact a qualified medical professional and avoid any involvement of law enforcement. 'The laws, the rhetoric, the culture in which we are living in within the U.S. has become so incredibly hostile to people who experience pregnancy,' she told CNN. 'I think that the intersection of health care and criminalization is an incredibly dangerous path,' Fonteno added. 'As a country, we should be supporting people and their ability to access the health care that they need, rather than conducting intrusive and traumatic investigations into their reproductive lives.' Read the original article on People
Bloomberg
an hour ago
- Bloomberg
Trump Using Military to Further Agenda, Says Constitutional Lawyer
Elizabeth Wydra, President of the Constitutional Accountability Center, says that constitutional guardrails are important to ensure US residents don't live under military authority, as President Trump dispatches more troops -including Marines and the National Guard- to counter anti-deportation protests. (Source: Bloomberg)
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
Gilbert: Can Trump ignore the courts? Here's what polling shows Americans think
Almost every day now, a new ruling arrives from the federal courts over President Donald Trump's assertion of powers that have not been claimed or used by presidents before him. Some of those rulings have gone Trump's way. Some have gone against him, leading the president and his deputies to lash out at the judiciary and accuse it of overreaching. How does the American public view the simmering Constitutional conflicts between the executive and judicial branches? It's an evolving story, but the polls suggest that in some important ways the public stands more solidly behind the courts than it does the president. Consider these findings from the most recent nationwide poll by the Marquette Law School, taken last month and released May 21: ∎ Americans overwhelmingly recognize the judiciary's role in determining the legality of a president's actions. Asked, 'If the Supreme Court rules against the president in a case, does the president have the power to ignore that ruling, or is the president required to do as the ruling says?' Eighty-four percent of adults say the president must obey the court's ruling. ∎ Asked if court orders temporarily blocking some of Trump's executive actions are a proper use of judicial authority, almost two-thirds (64%) say, 'Yes.' ∎ Asked about Trump's call for the impeachment of federal judges who have ruled against some of his spending freezes and closures of federal agencies, 70% say these judges should not be impeached for such rulings. ∎ Asked about two high-profile immigration-related rulings — one ordering the administration to facilitate the return of a man erroneously deported to El Salvador and the other requiring due process for those being deported — well over 60% of adults supported the high court's rulings against the Trump Administration. On some of these questions, not surprisingly, there is a split between Republicans and people outside the president's party (independents and Democrats). But on others, even Republicans support the courts. Take the broad question of whether Trump can ignore the Supreme Court. There is notably little partisan difference on this: 78% of Republicans, 78% of independents and 93% of Democrats say the president is required to do as the ruling says. Viewed one way, this is not an earth-shattering result. After all, the Constitution gives the courts the authority to decide on the legality of the president's actions. This is plain old civics. But viewed another way, it is a pretty powerful statement, because it is so uncommon these days to find this much agreement across party lines on any high-profile conflict involving this extremely polarizing president. In other words, the prospect of a president ignoring the courts is unappealing even to Trump's core supporters. Of adults who 'strongly approve' of the job Trump is doing, less than a quarter say the president can ignore a Supreme Court ruling, while 76% say he is required to do as the ruling says. On some other questions, a majority of Republicans take Trump's side in these collisions. But even in those cases, support for Trump's position falls far short of his overall approval rating within his party (almost 90%). Instead, a very sizable minority of self-identified Republicans side with the judiciary. Roughly 40% of Republicans say that federal court orders blocking some of Trump's executive actions are a proper use of judicial authority. In the two immigration cases cited above, about 40% of Republicans support the Supreme Court's rulings against Trump. And almost half of Republicans (46%) oppose the call by Trump and his deputies to impeach federal judges who have ruled against the president. One other thing to keep in mind about public opinion in this area is that the Supreme Court is more popular than the president. The court has a net positive rating, Trump has a net negative rating: 53% of adults nationwide approve of the court's performance, while 46% approve of Trump's performance, according to this recent Marquette poll. The court's approval has risen since 2024, while Trump's has declined from its high point at the beginning of his term in January. The court, which has issued rulings in recent years that have pleased (and outraged) both parties, is also far less polarizing than the president. It gets positive ratings from Republicans, who understand that most of the court's members were appointed by GOP presidents. And while it gets much lower ratings from Democrats, those numbers have been improving as the court has come under fire from Trump. The Supreme Court's approval rating among Democrats rose from 19% in January to 31% in May. The polling doesn't tell us how future rulings, or further attacks by Trump on judges, or a deeper constitutional conflict between the president and the courts might affect the public's views of the judiciary in the months and years ahead. It is possible Trump could drive down support for the court within his own party (the polling finds that Republican support is higher for impeaching judges when Trump personally is advocating it than when it is simply members of Congress doing so, a sign of Trump's personal power to move Republican sentiment). But further attacks by Trump on judges are also likely to increase support for the courts outside the president's political base. In Marquette's past four national surveys dating back to last fall, the polling has consistently shown that a huge majority of Americans recognize the courts' role in refereeing disputes over executive power. And so far, that has not been dented by the president's attacks on the courts' actions, motivations and authority. Craig Gilbert provides Wisconsin political analysis as a fellow with Marquette University Law School's Lubar Center for Public Policy Research and Civic Education. Prior to the fellowship, Gilbert reported on politics for 35 years at the Journal Sentinel, the last 25 in its Washington Bureau. His column continues that independent reporting tradition and goes through the established Journal Sentinel editing him on Twitter: @Wisvoter. This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Trump defying the courts? Here's where the public stands in polling
