And she messed the life of 1 young child and 1 unborn baby just in the hope that it'll help.

Again: her sentencing memorandum doesn't even seem to mention the kid. We should be careful about making stuff up to fit a narrative.

The court doesn't need to mention it to discreetly take it into account. Otherwise why wait until April to begin the sentence? Did they mention the pregnancy there? This is a legal, social, and political orchestration process, not a computational system.

There are lots of reasons the BOP would prefer to avoid incarcerating pregnant women. Surrenders are usually 4-6 weeks out; with the holidays, that pushes out into January. She's not getting that much of a break.

Perhaps a delay to give birth?

Yes, that makes a lot of sense. Far-out surrender dates are not that unusual.

I believe you misunderstood my comment.

If I was facing a jail time, I would NOT have kids till there is clarity. But I guess that is the distance between me and …

The urge to reproduce is real. She’ll be as barren as the Sahara by the time she gets out so it was now or never.

It’s a choice between have a child now or never have any children.

Well, I'm glad that she did the thing that she wanted, at the cost of another human being getting to grow up without a mother.

Not a good look to argue whether a woman should have the right to reproduce.

Her children will live better lives than 99% of the children on the planet despite not having their mother present until their pre-teen years.

Er no - the loss of a mother is extremely traumatic to a child. It can lead to long term mental health issues and physical health issues.

Lots of kids suffer worse deprivations than having one parent in jail. Life is tough, but these kids probably have a better than average shot at a good life.

And what makes you think that?

They'll be raised by a wealthy family with every material advantage in life. Some estimates have it that around 1 in 8 children in America go hungry at some point in their childhoods. So even if these kids are just fed regularly, that puts them ahead of millions of children.

The child did not lose a mother, if he/she never had one. Also she'll be out around the time the child will start elementary school. So yes the child will still be in a better spot than 99% of all children in single family households and probably than almost all in low income ones as well.

It's not a question of rights, since she obviously has them, it's a question of 'How fucked up is it to put your desire to have a child over that child's wellbeing.'

At some point in the desire to wellbeing ratio, that equation crosses the line into 'incredibly selfish'. Children aren't just trophies for their parents.

how did she mess those up? from what I hear, those kids will be taken care of better than most kids on this planet. Sure, not having the mother close is terrible, but who are we to judge that they would have been better off never born? And yes, she probably did this intentionally, but it really was her last chance to even have kids.

PSRs aren't adversarial to the defendant. It was lower than the prosecutor's sentencing memorandum, which is what a judge usually follows.