Tammy Skinner: Confused and Abused Murderess
4 August, 2006
On the morning of Feb. 23, 2006, she shot herself in the stomach killing her full-term baby. (Virginia, attempting to mitigate the current federal-court-imposed national abortion policy which has evolved into “partial birth abortions” across the fruited plain, had outlawed abortions in the third trimester. Folks did not want to think themselves barbaric by allowing those babies which could easily survive if they should exit the womb to be butchered by abortion in Virginia.). Tammy Skinner is the mother of two daughters, ages 2 and 4. This third child was due the day she shot him.
What is a magistrate to do? Let us imagine what the harried prosecutor, trying uphold the law, must consider.
(Now, there are plenty of prosecutors who do not consider what the laws actually say and only prosecute those which are politically suitable to enforce. The shining example of this kind of selective prosecution is the various anti-sodomite statutes on the books of all the states which are regularly “nol-pros-ed” because of the public indifference to the conglomerate title wave of Hollywood, academia, media elite, and apostate churches which are sympathetic to sodomy rights. But let us imagine a prosecutor trying to follow the “law” here.)
“She aborted her own child. Hmm. Unusual.”
“Practicing medicine without a license?”
“Nah, that would be too weird.”
“Well, she did abort her child beyond the age when a child may be aborted. That’s the fact. Let’s go for it.”
So the prosecution goes after her but the defense wins. Kevin Martingayle successfully argues that the Virginia statute under which she was charged was aimed at a third party, the abortionists, not at a mother. A wonderfully technical point which may get everyone out of the quagmire.
Saved. Charges dismissed.
Well there was another thing she did wrong, not as egregious as the murder. Skinner did file a false police report declaring that she had been shot by another person. So the state charges her for $1,200 in restitution.
“Okay. We did something about this bloody case. Let’s go home.”
“Ah but this just won’t do! We can’t have women killing their own children so crudely! We have more private, sanitized, and clinical ways of doing these things, even if they do cost poor mothers a bit more. This do-it-yourself-with-a-gun method is just too … too private! Too entrepreneurial, maybe! There has got to be more done about this.”
Prosecutors resumed the case in June by getting a grand jury to indict Skinner on the same charge, bypassing General District Court. She was re-indicted on 3 August under the law: Only kill babies when they are little; No killing big babies!
“Skinner was suffering from depression when she shot herself,” according to reporter Dave Forster, (The Virginian-Pilot , 4 August, 2006)).
Indeed, but what really drove the prosecutor to continue to give chase in this bizarre situation which abortion fans wish would just go away?
Methinks Prosecutor Jim Wizer gave it to us back in July: “She took a gun to herself and caused the loss of life of what would have been her child. She has two other children. What if whatever came upon her that morning comes upon her again?” (The Virginian-Pilot, 11 July, 2006).
(“Caused the loss of life of what would have been her child”? Quite a tortuous effort to conform reality to judicial idiocy.)
There is the rub. If this Miss Skinner ever gets caught abusing her ex-utero children, which are currently protected under the laws and popular opinion, the state will take some heat for overlooking this deed and the warning it ought to have given concerning her potential to abuse her two ex-utero daughters.
But is anyone really interested in the statistical connection between women who commit abortion and their tendency to abuse the children they allow to be born? Ex-utero child abuse abounds where womb-child slaughter is tolerated.