
Women Who Have Miscarriages Could Face Prosecution in West Virginia
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Women who miscarry could face investigation in West Virginia under new interpretations of the state's anti-abortion laws.
According to Raleigh County prosecuting attorney, Tom Truman, women who have experienced a miscarriage, otherwise known as an involuntary abortion, in the state, could face charges if they are found to have buried, flushed, or hidden evidence of their miscarriage.
He also said in remarks to WVNS reporter Jessica Farrish: "If you were relieved, and had been telling people, 'I'd rather get run over by a bus than have this baby,' that may play into law enforcement's thinking, too."
Tom Truman has been contacted for comment via the Raleigh County Community Resource Directory site.
Why It Matters
The issue underscores the ongoing effects of abortion bans and shifting legal interpretations after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. With rules varying by state, the prospect of prosecution for how women manage pregnancy loss raises questions about patient privacy, due process, and access to care.
An estimated 10 to 20 percent of all known pregnancies end in miscarriage, and miscarriages can cause severe mental trauma such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and depression. Criminalizing them can lead to extended mental anguish.
What To Know
The Women's Health Center of West Virginia Executive Director Katie Quiñonez, Charleston, West Virginia, Febuary 25, 2022.
The Women's Health Center of West Virginia Executive Director Katie Quiñonez, Charleston, West Virginia, Febuary 25, 2022.
Chris Jackson, File/AP Photo
Thurman's statements seem to amount to the possibility that women in West Virginia could be investigated and prosecuted under the abortion laws over their way of coping with a miscarriage or even their attitude to it.
West Virginia has one of the strictes sets of anti-abortion laws in the U.S. Women in West Virginia can only legally obtain an abortion if they are the victim of rape or incest or if they have an ectopic or nonviable pregnancy.
The state's anti-abortion laws say that a miscarriage is defined as "the unintended or spontaneous loss of an embryo or a fetus before the 20th week of pregnancy." Miscarriages are not classified as abortions and do not need to be declared to the police.
But Truman said in late May that prosecutors may use other state laws involving disposing of remains to prosecute women who have miscarried, per DC Now reporting.
He advised women call 911, a doctor or law enforcement if worried about potential charges.
These statements arose after police arrested a man for Disinterment/Displacement of A Dead Body, as he was accused of throwing out a plastic tub containing the remains of a miscarried fetus.
Following this, reporters from WVNS asked Truman if he was going to investigate other miscarriages, to which Truman told the station: "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."
Truman told the press that he was not considering filing charges against people who have suffered from a miscarriage, but that he knows many prosecuting attorneys who are open to this.
Political arguments around criminalizing miscarriages stem from the idea of 'fetal-personhood.' That is, the belief that fetuses should be treated as people, and therefore disposing of a miscarriages is equivalent to disposing of a dead body.
Other states where women may face criminal charges after miscarrying
West Virginia is not the first state where women may face criminal charges for a miscarriage.
In March 2025, Selena Maria Chandler-Scott, a Georgia resident was rushed to the hospital after passing out due to blood loss from a miscarriage. However, a witness then told police she had placed her fetus' remains in a dumpster. She was then arrested for concealing the fetus' death and disposing of its body.
Chander-Scott was eventually freed after an autopsy determined that the fetus was nonviable and stillborn.
In May, 2025, Texas resident Mallori Patrice Strait, was arrested for "corpse abuse" after miscarrying in a bathroom. Accused of trying to flush the fetus down the toilet, she was eventually freed due to insufficient evidence.
Dana Sussman, the senior vice president of Pregnancy Justice, said in a statement: "There is no one-size-fits-all way to handle fetal remains in these situations … No one is taught how to handle fetal remains, and police and prosecutors should not be weighing in on how women in this situation respond."
What People Are Saying
Attorney Tom Truman told WVNS: "A number of prosecuting attorneys in the state have discussed with him and other prosecuting attorneys their willingness to file criminal charges against women in pregnancy loss situations, by using state law related to disposal of human remains … The kind of criminal jeopardy you face is going to depend on a lot of factors. What was your intent? What did you do? How late were you in your pregnancy? Were you trying to hide something, or were you just so emotionally distraught you couldn't do anything else?
"If you were relieved, and had been telling people, 'I'd rather get run over by a bus than have this baby,' that may play into law enforcement's thinking, too."
Wendy Bach, principal investigator of a Pregnancy Justice report on pregnancy-related prosecutions: "We learned that prosecutions in the year after Dobbs represent a high-water mark in pregnancy criminalization, following from increased suspicion and surveillance of pregnant people."
What Happens Next
Although West Virginia law does not require women to disclose their miscarriages, Truman has encouraged women to tell law enforcement about their miscarriages in order to avoid suspicion surrounding their pregnancy loss.
If you or someone you know has been a victim of sexual violence, you can contact the National Sexual Assault Hotline at 800-656-4673, or contact the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN) helpline via their website rainn.org.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Israeli Official Arrested in Child Sex Sting Will Fight Charge: Attorney
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. A top Israeli government official arrested in an undercover child sex sting in Nevada intends to fight the charge despite having already left the U.S., his Las Vegas-based attorney told Newsweek Wednesday. Tom Artiom Alexandrovich, a 38-year-old senior official for Israel's National Cyber Directorate, was arrested on August 6 as part of a multiagency operation targeting alleged child sex predators. Police in Las Vegas announced details of the undercover sting on Friday. Alexandrovich and seven other suspects face a felony charge of luring a child with a computer for sex, Las Vegas police said. The Israeli official will fight the allegation, his attorney confirmed. "Our client is presumed to be innocent and intends to vigorously defend himself against the charge," attorney David Z. Chesnoff wrote in an email to Newsweek. "Mr. Alexandrovich intends to be in court whenever required by the court." Tom Artiom Alexandrovich in an undated official photograph. Tom Artiom Alexandrovich in an undated official photograph. National Cyber Directorate via Israeli Media Chesnoff also denied that his client, who has since returned to Israel, received preferential treatment after posting $10,000 bail with no apparent conditions a day after his arrest and prior to appearing before a judge, according to court records cited the Las Vegas Review-Journal. "He categorically received no special treatment as the bail set was standard and a bond was posted consistent with normal judicial procedures," Chesnoff told Newsweek. "Mr. Alexandrovich will meet all his court obligations consistent with the normal practices in the courts of Clark County, Nevada." U.S. State Department officials acknowledged Monday that the Israeli citizen did not claim diplomatic immunity and had been released by a state judge pending a court date before he left the country. "Any claims that the U.S. government intervened are false," State Department officials wrote on X. Clark County District Attorney Steve Wolfson did not return immediately return inquiries seeking comment Wednesday, but he defended Alexandrovich's bail as "standard" during an interview Tuesday with the Review-Journal. "The standard bail for this charge was $10,000, so anybody, upon being booked on that charge, can post that bail and get released with no conditions, and that's what happened in this case," Wolfson told the newspaper. The other seven other suspects, who did not post bail immediately, appeared before a judge for a probable-cause review, Wolfson added. A law enforcement decoy who pretended to be a 15-year-old girl started talking to an individual with Alexandrovich's phone on the "Pure" dating application, as well as WhatsApp, on August 6, according to an arrest report obtained by the Review-Journal. The conversation then turned "sexual in nature," with the suspect allegedly agreeing to meet the undercover investigator and take her on a date to a Cirque du Soleil show, the arrest report shows. Alexandrovich later arrived in a rideshare at an undisclosed location where the meeting was supposed to occur, police said. Alexandrovich, who said he had worked for the Israeli government for roughly 14 years, faces up to 10 years in prison if convicted. After waving his Miranda rights, Alexandrovich told federal agents he thought he was speaking to an 18-year-old woman as he attended a six-day Black Hat USA 2025 cybersecurity conference at the Mandalay Bay that ended on August 5, Las Vegas police said. "Alexandrovich stated he felt the girl 'pushed' him to talk about bringing a condom yet could not remember how many times the girl 'pushed' him," according to the arrest report. Las Vegas police said Friday that the eight arrests had occurred within the past two weeks. Clark County District Attorney Steve Wolfson holds up an indictment for Duane "Keefe D" Davis during a news conference at the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department headquarters to brief media members on Davis' arrest and... Clark County District Attorney Steve Wolfson holds up an indictment for Duane "Keefe D" Davis during a news conference at the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department headquarters to brief media members on Davis' arrest and indictment for the 1996 murder of Tupac Shakur on September 29, 2023 in Las Vegas, Nevada. More"We would like to remind parents to discuss with their children the dangers of engaging with strangers online," police said in a statement. "Parents are encouraged to routinely monitor their children's activity on social media and other online applications to prevent them from becoming victims of a child sex predator. This operation was conducted as part of the ongoing efforts to reduce violent crime and protect children in our community." The top federal prosecutor in Nevada, Sigal Chattah, confirmed in a statement Monday that Wolfson's office will handle the eight cases. "Last week, Tom Artiom Alexandrovich was arrested in a Nevada Internet Crimes Against Children joint operation; and he was booked into the Henderson Detention Center," Chattah said. "This important multi-agency operation targeted child sex predators who preyed upon the most vulnerable members of our communities." Newsweek has also reached out to the Israeli Consulate General in New York for further comment. The arrest of an official in Benjamin Netanyahu's government on charges of soliciting a minor propelled Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, the firebrand far-right lawmaker from Georgia who has broken with the Trump administration on the war in Gaza and the Jeffrey Epstein case, to speculate on social media that he was being shielded by the Trump administration. "Why did our government release a child sex predator from Israel who works directly under the Prime Minister of Israel?" Greene wrote on X. A status hearing in Alexandrovich's case is scheduled for August 27, court records show. Alexandrovich remains in Israel, according to reports in Israeli media.


Newsweek
2 hours ago
- Newsweek
Federal Judge Denies DOJ Request to Release Epstein Case Grand Jury Records
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. A federal judge in New York has denied a government request to unseal grand jury transcripts from the sex trafficking case involving the late financier Jeffrey Epstein. U.S. District Judge Richard Berman issued the ruling Wednesday in Manhattan, just weeks after the judge overseeing Ghislaine Maxwell's case similarly rejected the government's bid. Maxwell, a British socialite and longtime associate of Epstein, is serving a 20-year prison sentence following her conviction for sex trafficking and aiding Epstein in the sexual abuse of underage girls and young women. Epstein died in jail in 2019 while awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges. A spokesperson for the Justice Department declined to comment on the latest ruling. This is a breaking news story. Updates to follow.


Newsweek
2 hours ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump Suffers Major Immigration Legal Blow
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. A federal judge in Illinois has dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Trump administration that sought to block the state's workplace privacy law on the grounds that it conflicted with federal immigration enforcement. In a ruling issued on August 19, Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois rejected the administration's arguments, finding that the Illinois Right to Privacy in the Workplace Act is not preempted by federal immigration law. Why It Matters The ruling matters because it draws a clearer boundary between federal immigration power and state authority over workplace regulation. By rejecting the Trump administration's effort to use immigration law to override Illinois' privacy protections, Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman reaffirmed that states retain broad authority to govern employment relationships. The decision safeguards workers' procedural rights in the hiring process, could set a precedent for other states considering similar measures, and marks a significant check on the expansion of federal enforcement authority. An "Immigration Parking and US Citizenship" sign is displayed outside a parking garage, Tuesday, Aug. 12, 2025, in Chicago. (Aaron M. Sprecher via AP) An "Immigration Parking and US Citizenship" sign is displayed outside a parking garage, Tuesday, Aug. 12, 2025, in Chicago. (Aaron M. Sprecher via AP) Aaron M. Sprecher/AP What To Know The case centered on whether federal law—particularly the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA)—supersedes state-level employment protections. The administration argued that provisions of Illinois' law regulating the use of the federal E-Verify system and protecting employees during the employment verification process interfered with federal immigration authority. Coleman disagreed, concluding that the state law "is not expressly preempted by IRCA and does not intrude upon the federal government's constitutional powers in the space of immigration and foreign affairs." She added that the government's "broad interpretation of its power to regulate matters of immigration would swallow the historic powers of the states over employment-related issues". The Federal Government's Argument The Trump administration claimed that several provisions of Illinois' privacy law—including penalties for violations related to E-Verify—constituted sanctions on employers of unauthorized workers and therefore fell under IRCA's preemption clause. That provision bars states from imposing civil or criminal sanctions on employers who hire or recruit unauthorized workers/aliens. The Justice Department also argued that Illinois' law, by imposing notification requirements and other conditions on the use of E-Verify, conflicted with the federal goal of deterring unauthorized employment. At oral argument, however, Coleman noted that government lawyers struggled to identify precisely which sections of Illinois law they believed were preempted. In her ruling, she wrote that the administration's interpretation of IRCA's preemption clause was "broad to the point of absurdity." Judge's Reasoning Coleman emphasized that employment regulation has historically been a power of the states. "States possess broad authority under their police powers to regulate the employment relationship to protect workers within the State," she wrote, citing Supreme Court precedent. The judge found that Illinois' law does not penalize employers for hiring unauthorized workers but rather regulates how employers use verification systems and ensures employees' rights are respected during that process. "A person's immigration or work authorization status is irrelevant to determine whether an employer has violated any of the provisions of the act," Coleman explained. She further rejected the administration's conflict preemption argument, which claimed that Illinois' law undermined federal objectives. The government suggested that the state's notification rules could encourage unauthorized workers to evade detection. Coleman dismissed this as "simply too speculative a basis on which to rest a finding of pre-emption." Broader Implications The ruling represents a significant legal setback for Trump's immigration agenda, which has frequently sought to expand federal authority over state and local policies. By upholding Illinois' privacy protections, the court reaffirmed the principle that federal power over immigration does not automatically override state employment laws. The decision may carry consequences beyond Illinois. Other states have enacted or considered similar laws governing the use of E-Verify and employee privacy. Coleman's opinion suggests that such measures, when designed to regulate employment rather than immigration status, may withstand federal challenges. Newsweek contacted the Department of Justice for comment via email outside of regular working hours on Wednesday. What People Are Saying Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman wrote in her ruling that Illinois' workplace privacy law "is not expressly preempted by IRCA and does not intrude upon the federal government's constitutional powers in the space of immigration and foreign affairs." She added that the administration's interpretation of federal law was, "broad to the point of absurdity." Kyle Cheney of Politico wrote on X, August 20, 2025, "A federal judge in Illinois has thrown out the Trump administration's lawsuit against the state that claims IL's workforce privacy law conflicts with federal immigration enforcement." In a broader context, legal scholars and state officials have long debated the limits of federal power in immigration enforcement. Ilya Somin, professor of law at George Mason University, told the Washington Post in 2017: "Trump and future presidents could use [the executive order] to seriously undermine constitutional federalism by forcing dissenting cities and states to obey presidential dictates, even without authorization from Congress. The circumvention of Congress makes the order a threat to separation of powers, as well." What Happens Next The Trump administration is expected to appeal to the Seventh Circuit, with a possible path to the Supreme Court. For now, Illinois' workplace privacy law remains in effect, and the ruling could inspire other states to adopt similar protections while intensifying debates over federal versus state authority. Judge Coleman emphasized that federal immigration power "is not without limits," and that preemption requires a clear conflict. By leaving Illinois' law intact and denying an injunction, the ruling marks a notable legal setback for Trump's immigration strategy.