That's exactly what i was thinking! If she doesn't want kids, hasn't she AT LEAST heard of protection or adoption? She didn't have to kill her daughter...

Hasn't the MAN ever heard of protection???? Why leave it up to JUST the woman??

Exactly, cutlass, this woman is a monster, but the idea that its only a woman's responsibility is absurd. I hate to be a cynic, but I'm waiting for the father(s) to be interviewed about how distraught they are about what happened and the safety of the pregnancy. If they had just taken 5 seconds, we might not be reading this story.

That doesn't mean I excuse the mother from responsibility. If any good comes out of this at least she should receive pre-natal care and after giving birth have the child placed in a safer environment than the 2-year-old. No excuses for these parents, there are too many options for relinquishing all responsibility - safe haven, adoption come to mind.

Hopefully, she'll do some hard prison time. Women offenders don't like women who hurt or kill children. If they find out what she did, she's toast. (I used to work in a prison)

And her admission to suffocating her daughter, as stated by the article, will likely not be admissible to the court if this goes to trail. Sigh. She will probably get manslaughter, if anything. Our justice system is as dysfunctional as the people it pretends to prosecute.

I would like to have 10 minutes with this inhuman S.O.B. There is never any reason for anything like this. There is no mystery here, she is a evil bi*ch. I hope they fry her in cheap oil.

Actually, most women who harm their children are punished quite severely once they are charged. Society doesn't forgive the murder or abuse of an innocent child. Andrea Yates, who was clearly mentally disturbed, originally rec'd the death penalty. Its the delay in intervening that is criminal. We read about the cases where the authorities had rec'd reports of abuse and don't act, or we hear about them overreacting to situations where there the children weren't in danger. I think its about too little training, too much turnover, too large a caseload. No one wants children to suffer, but it seems the majority don't want to do what is necessary to provide all reasonable protection if it means money. (in a budge crisis you won't see many cases of reducing or delaying trash pick-up for instance, because the public would protest; but reduce funding for child protection or schools and not many speak up)

Exactly!!! how do you not notice a child under a cushion when you sit down? It would be like the lady who drowned her kids in the tub saying "oh I was trying to rinse out the soap." take her baby, steralize her, then throw her in a deep, dark hole.

I commented above about how life would be for her in prison. I'm afraid that someone, somewhere in the justice system will give her a light sentence because "the jails/prisons are overcrowded".

I hope that the laws in California are strong enough for her to get real time.

I could not agree with you more. Take away the new baby when it's born and snip, snip while she is on the table. At only 19 years old, she killed one, she'll do it again.

I only wish they would do that with any woman who has abused or killed her child, but CPS told me concerning my ex daughter-in-law that they can't force a woman to be sterilized because it's against their constitutional rights. What about the rights of the children? I am so very sick of hearing abut parental rights while innocent children are continued to be abused and/or killed.

Agreed,there is not alot of value placed on a innocent child's life in the world..She should get the death penality swiftly after this baby is born..

I am pro-choice. Do you not think that if this woman could have gotten an abortion it would have been more humane than to have the childr and them smother her to death?

The Constitution can't be for one group or person and not for others. Like any law that protects the innocent, the monsters are going to benefit at times, also. But we can't ignore the rights of some or we are in danger of losing the rights for all. I can't think of any right or law that is 'perfect', but I also can't think of a better system. What we can do, is be more aware and understand the danger to a child is our business and report concerns immediately. How often do we hear, after the fact, a neighbor comment that they had suspicions or heard things that concerned them but failed to report it? Its great to be outraged, but being pro-active saves lives.

I'm sure the dollars were a bonus, but for some its just about being lazy or needing 'love' without knowing the intense responsibility of a child or, maybe, the desire to hold a man, who knows. If it was just about welfare it would be easy to control; once you are start receiving assistance you will not receive added benefits if you continue to have babies from multiple fathers or even out-of-wedlock. Its not a moral thing, the marriage clause, its about not penalizing someone in a stable, loving home who happens to be on hard times. Just like not allowing someone to stay in public housing if they have drug users or dealers living there, we should be stricter in the rules for remaining on assistance.

Abortion is not the answer. Why kill and innocent baby because of the mother? Better to put the baby up for adoption by one of the millions of couples who cannot have children of their own. Give this unborn baby a chance to live!

This story reinforces the decision roe vs wade was and is the right decision.