IL Abortion Rights Law and Baby Yovanny’s Death

IL Abortion Rights Law and Baby Yovanny’s Death

IL Abortion Rights Law and Baby Yovanny’s Death

On Wednesday, IL Gov. JB Pritzker signed an abortion rights law which he proudly proclaimed to be the most progressive in the nation. He was very happy about it, too, while the women around him clapped like trained seals.

Pritzker called abortion a “fundamental right,” and said this at the signing:

“In a time when too many states across the nation are taking a step backward, Illinois is taking a giant step forward for women’s health. Today, we proudly proclaim that in this state, we trust women.”

Moreover, the new IL law uses these words:

“ . . . fertilized egg, embryo or fetus does not have independent rights.”

It was a happy day for JB, not so much for unborn babies in Illinois.

Two days after Pritzker signed the IL Reproductive Health Act into law, Baby Yovanny Ochoa-Lopez died in a Chicago hospital. How Baby Yovanny wound up in the hospital sounds like a gruesome tale from the “Murder Castle” at the 1893 Chicago World’s Fair.

Marlen Ochoa-Lopez, the baby’s mother, had gone to pick up some free baby clothes at a home in Chicago. She was nine-months pregnant with the little boy, and as a very young wife and mother, the offer sounded tempting.

IL abortion law

Credit: congerdesign/pixabay/pixabay license. 

But while she was there, the mother-daughter team of Clarisa and Desiree Figueroa strangled Marlen with a cable and then cut the baby from her womb. Prosecutors say it took four to five minutes for Marlen to die.

However, the murder also deprived the baby boy of oxygen, which caused irreversible brain damage. He didn’t breathe, so the pair quickly took him to the hospital,

As for Marlen — she was found in a garbage can outside the Figueroa home. The coaxial cable was still around her neck.

And now little Yovanny Ochoa-Lopez has died.

So now the Cook County State’s Attorney’s office has a conundrum upon their hands: should they make additional charges against the Figueroa’s? And for what — his brain damage? his death?

Frank Avila, the attorney for Yovani Lopez, Marlen’s husband, wants those additional charges. But the State’s Attorney’s office released this statement:

“The State’s Attorney’s Office will make a determination on additional charges in this case after the medical examiner’s office and police department have completed their investigations.”

So if this had been, say, a day-old baby who had been suffocated, there would be no doubt that this would be a murder charge. But now the SA’s office needs to ponder what to do. Usually prosecutors upgrade charges when a victim has died from injuries in a crime.

But technically, was baby Yovanny even “born”? He never took a breath. When the Figueroa women cut him from his mother, he was still a “fetus.” And according to the new IL Reproductive Rights Law, he wouldn’t have “independent rights,” if his mother had aborted him.

Most people, if they have a heart, would read about little Yovanny’s death and find it to be a tragedy. They would also be shocked and outraged at his mother’s death. Yet how many of those same people feeling sorry for him applaud the new IL abortion law? Moreover, why should an unborn baby be more expendable in Illinois than little baby Yovanny was?

I’m no attorney, but it seems to me that the new IL abortion rights act raises a lot of questions about who determines which lives are worthwhile.

 

Featured image: witwiccan@pixabay/cropped/pixabay license.

 

 

Written by

Kim is a pint-sized patriot who packs some big contradictions. She is a Baby Boomer who never became a hippie, an active Republican who first registered as a Democrat (okay, it was to help a sorority sister's father in his run for sheriff), and a devout Lutheran who practices yoga. Growing up in small-town Indiana, now living in the Kansas City metro, Kim is a conservative Midwestern gal whose heart is also in the Seattle area, where her eldest daughter, son-in-law, and grandson live. Kim is a working speech pathologist who left school system employment behind to subcontract to an agency, and has never looked back. She describes her conservatism as falling in the mold of Russell Kirk's Ten Conservative Principles. Don't know what they are? Google them!

8 Comments
  • MortMain says:

    Murder of an unborn child is no longer a crime in Illinois. So how can they sue for negligent destruction of a fetus? Tort law is upside down.

    • MortMain says:

      That is intentional destruction is not a tort so how can you have negligent destruction as a tort?

    • Wfjag says:

      Because plaintiffs’ lawyers can make money for injuries to the unborn, and use some of that for donations to the campaigns of Democrats running for election.

  • Mary Anne Borg says:

    So will those horrible women get away with murder? Mother and live baby whose early demise was a result of their actions? What about kidnapping a child?

  • Charles N. Steele says:

    This morning’s news included a report on a pregnant woman who was murdered but her fetus kept alive on life support. He’s now died and a second set of murder charges filed against the suspect. This stuff is not settled law. I think the right will prevail.

  • Brian Brandt says:

    “But technically, was baby Yovanny even “born”? He never took a breath. When the Figueroa women cut him from his mother, he was still a “fetus.” And according to the new IL Reproductive Rights Law, he wouldn’t have “independent rights,” if his mother had aborted him.”

    I’m not sure this is correct. At nine months, the baby was viable. He was ‘born’ thru the perpetrator’s crude cesarean section and lived independently for a time. He may not have had rights as a fetus, but he did after he was born alive. His ultimate death was the direct result of the crime. I think the prosecutors would have a good case here.

  • GWB says:

    Most people, if they have a heart, would read about little Yovanny’s death and find it to be a tragedy.
    I find it to be outright EVIL.

    This IL law, however, is of the same kind as some of the more restrictive anti-abortion laws being passed – it’s a way of bringing this all to a head and hoping a new SCOTUS decision will swing the fight your way. The phrase “does not have independent rights” is intended as a distinct poke in the eye to pro-life citizens.

    Ironically, if the child doesn’t have “independent” rights, then the rights they do have must depend on the decisions of another. Which sounds an awful lot like … SLAVERY.
    Once again, Democrats support enslaving a minority to the decisions of the majority.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe
Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner
gisonboat
rovin_readhead
Instagram