Melissa Ann Rowland: A tragic case that is getting some media attention involves a woman charged with murder for refusing to have a Caesarian section, which allegedly led to the death of one of the twins she was carrying. The case is infamous because of the claim that she refused because she didn't want a scar. A more complete account: Prosecutors allege [she denies it] that Rowland told a nurse during a January visit to a hospital that doctors wanted to cut her "from breast bone to pubic bone" and she would rather "lose one of the babies than be cut like that." It is also noted that in actuality, such an invasive procedure will not be necessary; only a "bikini incision" would be used in most cases.

The case is even more complex. The women later noted she already had scars from past caesareans. Also, Rowland has a history of mental illness, including apparently suicide attempts. The stress of the moment for such an individual is apparent. This is the sort of person the state charges with murder, surely likely to make her case a cause celebre? As noted by Rachel Roth in Making Women Pay: The Hidden Costs of Fetal Rights and others, the "typical" case (the situation is far from typical, obviously) involves a woman with religious claims or who are worried about the dangers of such an invasive procedure (one known to be performed unnecessarily in some cases). Also, the women often are very emotionally vulnerable, and sometimes not properly handled by impersonal medical authorities.

The details, especially given medical privacy rules, continue to be hazy and will become less hazy over time. Suffice to say, the case is troubling, including the stereotypical way some are presenting it. The use of a case of this sort to influence policy as to totally competent women or women whose personal actions (smoking, drug use, and so forth) affect their pregnancies would be misguided. The problems of mentally troubled and emotionally unstable women, on the other hand, should be addressed with these sort of cases in mind.