I casually knew a woman several years ago who was stung out during her five, count them, five pregnancies. And breast fed everyone of them. Having babies who were addicted. All it took was a passing aqauntaince with her to know she was a meth head.

A murder charge assumes the woman's intent was to terminate her pregnancy by poisoning her baby. The article tells nothing about her life, so we know nothing if her intent, which is difficult to judge in any case.

Man Slaughter I or II Perhaps , but not Murder I or even II

I'm curious as to what California law says about anyone else under these circumstances. I would think that if any mandatory reporter were aware of drug use and the pregnancy, and reported the situation, that this woman would have gotten help with her addiction, along with prenatal care. Plus, given her history of drug addiction and pregnancies, why hadn't the court ordered some kind of birth control? I mean, she had a history of drug addiction and apparently of using during her previous three pregnancies. This sounds more like an indictment of a system that failed, or is seriously lacking.

I am not supporting the woman.

That's insane. She's a drug addict. They probably are pro capital punishment and against masks.. Real pro life.