Woman Who Threw Baby in Trash Sentenced to 20 Years; Judge Says She Should Have Aborted

PatelMISHAWAKA, Ind. — An Indiana woman who allegedly threw her newborn baby in the trash after giving birth was sentenced to 20 years behind bars on Monday, while being lectured by the presiding judge that she should have obtained an abortion.

Purvi Patel, 33, was arrested in 2013 after arriving at St. Joseph’s Hospital in Mishawaka with heavy bleeding and a umbilical cord hanging from her body. She initially denied being pregnant, but later told investigators that she had found out just three weeks prior that she was with child. Patel had been having an affair with a co-worker.

As her Hindu family is against premarital sex, Patel said that she panicked when she began to go into labor and left the baby in a dumpster behind a local shopping center because she “didn’t know what else to do.” She claimed that the baby was stillborn and that she had attempted to revive the child, although she later admitted that she didn’t want her parents to know that she had been having sex and became pregnant.

“[You didn’t want them to know] about the encounter, or about tonight?” a detective asked her.

“All of it,” she replied.

But prosecutors contended that the child, who is estimated to be between 25 to 30 weeks gestation, was born alive and that Patel left the baby to die. Attorneys also claimed that Patel had purchased abortion-inducing drugs in an effort to terminate her pregnancy as they had found text messages on her phone in which the woman allegedly told her friends that she was doing so.

While toxicology reports came up negative for drugs at the time of the investigation, Dr. Kelly McGuire, who examined Patel and the baby retrieved from the dumpster, told the court earlier this year that the baby could have survived following birth and a medical examiner testified that the baby passed a “floating test,” indicating that he or she could have been breathing following their birth.

  • Connect with Christian News

In February, Patel was convicted with feticide under Indiana law, which states that “a person who knowingly or intentionally terminates a human pregnancy with an intention other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead fetus commits feticide.” The law provides an exception for mothers who obtain an abortion. She was also found guilty of neglect for leaving the child in a dumpster to die.

On Monday, Patel was sentenced to 20 years behind bars for her crimes. St. Joseph Superior Court Judge Elizabeth Hurley lectured the woman that she should have obtained an abortion.

“You, Miss Patel, are an educated woman of considerable means. If you wished to terminate your pregnancy safely and legally, you could have done so,” she said. “You planned a course of action and took matters into your own hands and chose not to go to a doctor.”

But now, abortion advocates are rising up against the Indiana law—much like the Religious Freedom Restoration Act recently signed into law—and are claiming that it will be used against women who have miscarriages. Some are calling it “Indiana’s other outrageous law.”

“While no woman should face criminal charges for having an abortion or experiencing a pregnancy loss, the cruel length of this sentence confirms that feticide and other measures promoted by anti-abortion organizations are intended to punish not protect women,” National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW) Executive Director Lynn Paltrow said in a statement.

Lila Rose of Live Action told reporters last year that she found the entire case to be ironic.

“If an abortionist had destroyed this defenseless little person at 28 weeks, there would be no controversy,” she said. “But since the baby managed to be born, to breathe, and then to be killed at the exact same age, law enforcement is scrambling to see justice served.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Oboehner

    What’s the difference? Oh I know, there’s no profit in it if she murders the baby herself.

  • Carol Cantell Moorby

    No difference…..MURDER at any stage. The judge is saying that you can kill the baby while in vitro but not after the birth. Double minded …bad advice….bad judge. you can never justify it.

  • Pat

    Why not adoption?

    • jennthebomb

      Because if you read the article you will see that she was of Hindu descent and was petrified of her parents finding out that she was pregnant. Therefore adoption would of been out of the question as far as this young women was concerned.

  • timfromla

    When religion takes hold of people’s life, it destroys the life of people

    • Martha Washington

      That is such hogwash. Just look at what has happened to society. At one time, this young woman could have gone away for 9 months, had medical care, delivered her baby and it would have been adopted.

    • Eponymous1

      You come to christiannews.net to say that? It’s like the very definition of trolling.

    • Mars Attacks!

      Can you try posting that again, only this time in English?

    • Bert_1

      What religion? The article is talking about a woman who murdered her child. Do you honestly think that a person has to be religious to find that reprehensible?

      • timfromla

        When laws or in the case of the woman, her faith are based on religious values, this crap happens. Brainwashing by theists never allows the believer to see the whole truth and I can prove that there is no Lucifer.

        • Bert_1

          But, there is no reference to religion in this article so how or why did you put a religious spin on it?

          How can you prove that there is no lucifer?

          • timfromla

            By quoting the Bible… want to know the passage?

          • timfromla

            Also, her religious belief prohibits her from being pregnant. See? Religion sucks…all religion sucks and so do Christianity too.

  • Martha Washington

    Doesn’t Indiana have safe places to leave a baby? I know in Virginia a woman can take a baby to a fire station, hospital, police station, etc and leave it, no questions asked.

  • 2chestnuts

    This people are all actually crazy. They all say we must follow the law and kill babies according to Obama’s policies. I do not want to. I wonder if these baby killers ever think about how life is b-4 birth? Yes, there is life b-4 birth. There are 100’s of ways to verify that but these liberal bureaucrats want all of us to suffer along with them and force us to pay for abortions. I really believe that all supporters of abortion must spend one day in an abortion clinic and actuall participate in abortions that they support. Then follow the mother’s life for one year afterwards.

  • Eponymous1

    The rule is… you have to kill the kid before he sees the light of day.

    • Cobra

      that a sick world we live in…if you pay to have your baby murdered by an abortiontist it is ok but once born than it is a crime.. both should be a crime…both are murder

  • KenS

    How is this case any different than the woman who cut the baby out of the mother, the same amount of evidence is avail here, but yet she is not being prosecuted for murder of the baby only attempted murder of the mother.

  • LadyScot

    Again how ignorant of our legal system. If she kills it after birth it is murder but if the doctor does it before birth it is abortion.

  • Josey

    The debate over fetal rights is not new to the legislative arena. Every year pro-life and pro-choice advocates vie for the upper hand in this contentious issue. In recent years, states have expanded this debate to include the issue of fetuses killed by violent acts against pregnant women. In some states, legislation has increased the criminal penalties for crimes involving pregnant women. These laws have focused on the harm done to a pregnant woman and the subsequent loss of her pregnancy, but not on the rights of the fetus.

    Other legislation has defined the fetus as a person under fetal homicide or “feticide” laws. Such legislation is hotly debated under names such as the Fetal Protection Act, the Preborn Victims of Violence Act and the Unborn Victim of Violence Act. Those supporting these acts, often pro-life advocates, say that both the lives of the pregnant woman and the fetus should be explicitly protected. They assert that fetal homicide laws justly criminalize these cases and provide an opportunity to protect unborn children and their mothers.

    Those on the other side feel that laws to protect a fetus could become a “slippery slope” that could jeopardize a woman’s right to choose an abortion. Pro-choice advocates say such laws grant a fetus legal status distinct from the pregnant woman – possibly creating an adversarial relationship between a woman and her baby. They are also concerned that the laws could be interpreted to apply to a woman’s behavior during her pregnancy (such as smoking, drinking or using drugs). They prefer criminalizing an assault on a pregnant woman and recognizing her as the only victim.

    Currently, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws. The states include: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin

  • Cosmic Mastermind

    If you ban abortion, you’ll be seeing a lot more of this.