863

The 33-year-old Watts, who had not shared the news of her pregnancy even with her family, made her first prenatal visit to a doctor’s office behind Mercy Health-St. Joseph’s Hospital in Warren, a working-class city about 60 miles (100 kilometers) southeast of Cleveland.

The doctor said that, while a fetal heartbeat was still present, Watts’ water had broken prematurely and the fetus she was carrying would not survive. He advised heading to the hospital to have her labor induced, so she could have what amounted to an abortion to deliver the nonviable fetus. Otherwise, she would face “significant risk” of death, according to records of her case.

That was a Tuesday in September. What followed was a harrowing three days entailing: multiple trips to the hospital; Watts miscarrying into, and then flushing and plunging, a toilet at her home; a police investigation of those actions; and Watts, who is Black, being charged with abuse of a corpse. That’s a fifth-degree felony punishable by up to a year in prison and a $2,500 fine.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Got_Bent@lemmy.world 41 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Unrelated fun fact on child tax credits: There is a section of the internal revenue code that states if your child has been kidnapped, you can still claim the dependent.

This means that at some point in time, somebody lost a child, and their priority was maintaining that sweet, sweet credit to the point that they went to court to argue the matter.

Edit: It's in Internal Revenue Code section 152

(6)Treatment of missing children (A)In general Solely for the purposes referred to in subparagraph (B), a child of the taxpayer— (i)who is presumed by law enforcement authorities to have been kidnapped by someone who is not a member of the family of such child or the taxpayer, and (ii)who had, for the taxable year in which the kidnapping occurred, the same principal place of abode as the taxpayer for more than one-half of the portion of such year before the date of the kidnapping, shall be treated as meeting the requirement of subsection (c)(1)(B) with respect to a taxpayer for all taxable years ending during the period that the child is kidnapped.

[-] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 31 points 1 year ago

You're making it sound like it's definitely the parent who is somehow being cruddy.
Lawsuits over tax interpretation don't happen until years after the fact and they're initiated by the IRS.

Alternative explanation: someone's kid was kidnapped, so they took their taxes to a tax prep person and told them to deal with it. Tax prep person checked the boxes for the credit and submitted the taxes.
Later, the IRS says you can't claim them as a dependent and that they don't live in your house without providing an alternative address.
The IRS sues HR block as the agent of the taxpayer and five years later a judge says that you actually can, so the code is updated and a new checkbox added.

[-] Got_Bent@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

You bring up a good point. Unfortunately I don't have access to case law research to trace the origins of the statute.

[-] circuscritic@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 year ago

Nah, I'm pretty sure it was the parent of a kidnapping victim who lobbied their congressperson to make sure their missing kid didn't increase their tax burden.

I mean, if the kid hadn't been so obsessed with free candy, it wouldn't have even been an issue.

[-] girlfreddy@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago

I'm hoping there an /s at the end.

[-] circuscritic@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'm always amazed that people would need to see an /s to understand blanantly obvious in your face sarcasm.

Especially when punctuated with a joke about blaming a kidnapped child for taking the free candy.

Think about what site you're on for five seconds.

[-] girlfreddy@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I have ADHD and autism. I do not see subtleties easily.

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

I don't think that is how it happened. It probably happened with all the bullshit that goes down with divorce.

[-] Got_Bent@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

It says in there kidnapped by somebody who is not a family matter, so that's probably not the origin.

Unfortunately, I don't have access to legal citators anymore, so I don't think I've got the resources to find the true origins. I haven't thought about this in years, and now I'm super curious.

this post was submitted on 16 Dec 2023
863 points (99.1% liked)

News

23659 readers
3035 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS