Is a miscarriage murder? In Utah, they aren’t quite going that far, but they do want to punish women who “recklessly” miscarry. The Salt Lake Tribune reports:
The Utah Senate has joined the House in allowing homicide charges against expectant mothers who arrange illegal abortions.
The bill responds to a case in which a Vernal woman allegedly paid a man $150 to beat her and cause miscarriage but could not be charged. The Senate on Thursday approved HB12 on a vote of 24-4, criminalizing a woman’s “intentional, knowing, or reckless act” leading to a pregnancy’s illegal termination. It specifies that a woman cannot be prosecuted for arranging a legal abortion.
The bill awaits the Governor’s signature.
How do you say “overbroad” in language a Ute would understand?
It seems to me that applying a recklessness standard to prenatal care is Utah’s way of saying “If you are pregnant, you best be barefoot.”
So, what might the Utah law penalize?
The blog Reality Check puts the Utah proposal in perspective:
In addition to criminalizing an intentional attempt to induce a miscarriage or abortion, the bill also creates a standard that could make women legally responsible for miscarriages caused by “reckless” behavior.
Using the legal standard of “reckless behavior” all a district attorney needs to show is that a woman behaved in a manner that is thought to cause miscarriage, even if she didn’t intend to lose the pregnancy. Drink too much alcohol and have a miscarriage? Under the new law such actions could be cause for prosecution.
“This creates a law that makes any pregnant woman who has a miscarriage potentially criminally liable for murder,” says Missy Bird, executive director of Planned Parenthood Action Fund of Utah. Bird says there are no exemptions in the bill for victims of domestic violence or for those who are substance abusers. The standard is so broad, Bird says, “there nothing in the bill to exempt a woman for not wearing her seatbelt who got into a car accident.”
Would it be reckless for a Utah woman to work 2,800 hours a year at a law firm? When we ran our lawyer health survey a few months ago, a surprising amount of women noted that that their demanding and stressful jobs led to miscarriages.
And the Utah law seeks to criminalize maternal behavior from conception on, not just in the third trimester.
The bill’s sponsor displays a poor understanding of the ramifications of her own law:
But the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Margaret Dayton, R-Orem, said the bill doesn’t target victims at all — only those who arrange to terminate their pregnancies illegally.
“I know it’s well-intentioned,” Dayton said of the attempt to lift “reckless acts” from the bill, “but I don’t think we want to go down the road of carefully defining the behavior of a woman.”
Does this state senator not understand that by leaving in “reckless acts” her law precisely goes down the road of carefully defining the behavior of a woman? Or is she just being willfully ignorant of how her law regulates personal behavior?
Look, hiring a man to beat the life out of your fetus is morally reprehensible. But legislative sexism is just as reprehensible. Women are not baby incubators.
If the Utah legislature really cares so much about helping pregnant women, I hope to God that free, universal prenatal care is next up on their legislative agenda.
Measure on illegal abortions heads to governor [Salt Lake Tribune]
Utah Bill Criminalizes Miscarriage [RH Reality Check]
Earlier: ‘Being A Lawyer Makes Me Sick’
This reminds me of the saying, don’t make someone else’s bed when there are cobwebs in the corners.
“Women are not baby incubators.”
So what , the fucking stork delivers kids?
42 F.2d 1622 (ATL Cir. 2001)
“Bird says there are no exemptions in the bill for victims of domestic violence or for those who are substance abusers. ”
You know what, if you’re a crackhead who gets pregnant you should be held liable if you kill the fetus, or just go down to PP and get a free abortion. Better for everyone involved.
PAY ATTENTION TO Y’ALL PREGNANCIES
“Miscarriage” is a noun, not a verb. The verb form of “miscarriage” is “miscarry.” A state can no more punish women who ” ‘recklessly’ miscarriage” than it can punish women who ” ‘recklessly’ lamppost.”
mysttal, your idiocy is truly shocking.
Since working long hours and high levels of stress are well known factors in miscarriage, it looks like it’s now potentially criminal to get pregnant in Utah if you’re a doctor, lawyer, or other professional.
Way to take us back to the stone age Utah! Next they’ll be repealing women’s suffrage. Thank #@^&ing g-d I turned down that job offer in SLC.
– Republican Male
“The bill’s sponsor displays a poor understand of ramifications of her own law …”
…while Elie continues to display a poor understand of the English language.
Oh, Elie, Elie, you are blind. It wasn’t a miscarriage. It was an abortion. An abortion, Elie. Just like this blog is an abortion. Something that’s unholy and evil. I didn’t want your post, Elie! I wouldn’t bring another one of your posts into this world! It was an abortion, Elie! It was a post Elie! A post! And I had it killed because this must all end!
This state is so fucking retarded it could be the next Governor of Alaska.
CHECK YOU MAGIC UNDERWEAR!
Mystal, you are a true idiot. This website will be much better once you released into the wild.
8 — While you are ensconced in your comfortable life, women are sufferaging all over the world. It is incredibly callous to suggest that we should not work to end their sufferaging.
right on #2
10 wins the internet.
Only a moron, like Mystal, would think that working long hours would be reckless. Clearly the intent of the law is not prevent women from using a coathanger, drugs or the like to perform an illegal abortion.
Only a moron, like Mystal, would think that working long hours would be reckless. Clearly the intent of the law is to prevent women from using a coathanger, drugs or the like to perform an illegal abortion.
Question: If you kill a pregnant woman, you’re often charged with double homicide, and the country supports this decision. Why then, if you kill your own fetus illegally, should you not be charged with homicide?
Not that I agree with the homicide charge, but there is a great logical inconsistency. Or you could get a legal abortion. There are many clinics that do them cheap.
In fairness to Utah, it’s a well known fact that all women are good for is pumping out babies and being sperm dumpsters. I think the last few decades of “womens’ liberation” have shown just how useless and disruptive women are in the workplace, so I applaud Utah’s efforts to get them back in the bedroom and the kitchen where they all belong.
Until you start liveblogging “The Deep End,” FUCK THIS COCKSUCKING WEBSITE!!
19,
Mormon Secure
Elie’s mom didn’t pay the guy enough.
You know that “reckless” doesn’t mean “negligent.” Right?
I guess you don’t.
Illegal abortions are illegal? Outrageous!
http://bl1y.com/?p=473
Way to get the story in 3 days after the fact…
I caught the last ten minutes of The Deep End last night and thought that it was pretty worthless.
There are huge problems with this law, the most obvious being: How the HECK can you prove that a behavior impacts first triemster miscarriage. 20% of all known pregnancies end in miscarriage in the first trimester. A woman can do everything right and miscarry. Conversely, a woman can do everything wrong and go on to have a healthy baby. There is simply no way to know whether drinking 10 drinks or having a stressful day at work caused a particular miscarriage.
Further, there is no way to look to the murder of a pregnant woman statues for guidance because death of the mother automatically causes death of the fetus – and most of those statutes seem to kick in some time around the 2nd trimester and/or viability anyway.
18,
Even by that logic, the law should differentiate. For example:
* Hiring someone to beat the crap out of your belly = murder
* Staying in an abusive relationship that leads to a miscarriage = negligent homicide
Elie I don’t understand….couldn’t a woman who obtains an illegal abortion still be found guilty of murder under a Good Samartian statute?
To #8 – FAIL. I suppose you didn’t actually do any research before your comment on women’s suffrage – Utah was actually the VERY FIRST STATE/TERRITORY TO ALLOW WOMEN TO VOTE.
With that lack of due diligence in your comment, I am surprised you got any job!
10 totally made my day.
Good. It’s about time someone took a stand on traditional moral values.
Honestly the legal system is so anti-male it will be a nice change for the females to see what we deal with every time there is a rape charge/ divorce/ domestic violence accusation.
Girrrrrrrl power!
That woman in the picture is kind of cute. Can I get her number?
Got to Love Elie screaming about how evil it is that Utah is trying to prevent cold blooded Murder. Does he honestly think the AG is preparing to raid every lawfirm in the state looking for pregnant women?
He must, else I’d have to assume that he doesn’t want to stop women from illegally aborting their babies.
Typical mormons. They want to control your life so that you will conform to their whacky religious beliefs.
This is a fun game to play at the office. Look at the underqualified BYU grads in your office. Then connect them to the mormon partner that brought them into your firm. Religious nepotism at its best.
“Using the legal standard of “reckless behavior” all a district attorney needs to show is that a woman behaved in a manner that is thought to cause miscarriage, even if she didn’t intend to lose the pregnancy. Drink too much alcohol and have a miscarriage? Under the new law such actions could be cause for prosecution.
… legislative sexism is just as reprehensible. Women are not baby incubators.”
Dear liberals, I don’t think “reckless” and “sexism” mean what you think it means. But then again, reality usually has an anti-liberal bias.
27: Your argument doesn’t make sense because you switch the perpetrator. Compare apples to apples next time, requires fewer logical leaps.
2: Thank you.
26, if they can’t prove that your behavior caused the miscarriage beyond a reasonable doubt, then you’re innocent. That’s criminal law 101, got that?
Free, universal pre-natal care?
What a moron. The willful refusal to accept economic reality — there is no such thing as a free lunch — is at the heart of all liberal BS in this country. “Free” simply means that taxpayers pay for it. Or do you think that doctors and nurses will work for nothing? All socialism, ultimately, amounts to thievery and slavery, at the point of a gun barrel.
You’re such a piece of crap, but you think you’re a saint.
29,
First of all, Wyoming was first. Utah second. How’s that for due diligence?
Second, they only did it so that they could more quickly achieve statehood. It wasn’t out of some magnanimity
No 36, in 27’s example (as interpreted under this statute) the perp was the expectant mother both times. Just one time her actions were intentional, the other reckless. That’s why this statute is so F’d up.
1. Mothers who miscarry are not “failed mothers.” What a stupid way to title a post.
2. Get a fucking clue. Many BYU law grads are extremely bright and qualified individuals who chose to attend BYU rather than one of the ivy league schools they were admitted to.
3. This law is not about mormonism. It is a knee-jerk reaction to a woman trying to get an abortion outside of the law (and succeeding) by having her friend beat the shit out of her. And, it will likely fail. Even in Utah, people have some common sense- and this is clearly a badly drafted law.
4. Comment number 10 is brilliant.
10 wins post of the week.
I would strongly support a bill that forbade women from recklessly lampposting.
We let people get charged/convicted for TWO counts of murder if they kill a woman who is pregnant. How is this any different? Why is it fair to extend legal rights to children in that situation while not extending those legal rights in the context of an individual who, for example, does drugs while pregnant or drink heavily. Isn’t that just as destructive?
Leave it to ellie to make a bunch of overly broad statements as part of his criticism of a bill for…being overly broad. If anything, your post only proves that you’re as dumb as you think the Utah State Senate is. Congratulations.
I wish I could suck at my job as much as you suck at yours.
Given, it’s poorly drafted. But assuming the bill passes, who in their right mind actually believes that a DA is going to prosecute a baby incubator under the “reckless” arm of this statute for behavior as slight as drinking too much? Moreover, what judge wouldn’t toss that case immediately given how its prosecution would be clearly unconstitutional?
10 should read:
Oh, Elie, Elie, you are blind. It wasn’t a miscarriage. It was an abortion. An abortion, Elie. Just like this blog is an abortion. Something that’s unholy and evil. I didn’t read your post, Elie! I wouldn’t let another one of your posts into my world! It was an abortion, Elie! It was a post Elie! A post! And I didn’t read it because this must all end!
–10
I’m so sick of these anti-choice fascists who meddle in my baby-clubbing.
A woman’s body is her own. “Women are not baby incubators,” they just happen to incubate babies while pregnant.
This law is also arbitrary: It applies to maternal behavior post-conception. Did you pull that timeframe out of your butt, Utah? The Utah legislature should have picked a much more sound basis for the time at which the state may circumscribe maternal behavior. Umm, let’s say, I don’t know, how about the third trimester? That should do it.
(P.S. I misspoke when I said, “Hiring a man to beat the life out of your fetus is morally reprehensible.” The science is settled and all doctors agree that life begins at birth, not at conception. Therefore, the fetus had no life to get beaten out of him in the first place. I regret the error.)
Finally, I’d like to take a minute to plug free, universal pre-natal care. Free! We’ll either tax the rich or saddle our children with more deficits (provided they survive the legal stomach clubbing, of course)!
Either way it’s a win. Did I mention it’s free?
BABIES INSECURE
I would like to know State Senate candidate Bill Henrickson’s position on this law.
re working long hours. Reckless refers to unjustified risks, and miscarriage risk from going to work would likely qualify as justified.
re drinking – are people suggesting we need to protect a pregnant woman’s right to get so drunk that she kills her fetus?
8, you RINO.
I second Commenter 23. Reality Blog = TTT. Recklessness is defined as the conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk of, in this case, an abortion occurring illegally. Illegally/unlawfully in this definition means “without justification or excuse.”
Using principles of lenity and good ol’ common sense, something tells me judges in Utah will make the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the women consciously disregarded the substantial and unjustifiable risk that an illegal abortion was going to occur. Essentially, the courts will eviscerate that provision, as they should, by making it extremely difficult to prove recklessness. On top of that, you’ve got a jury to prove it to, and do you think, even in Utah, they’ll be excited to put a woman in jail who’s had the sad misfortune of miscarrying her baby on a mens rea of recklessness?
So no, Utah women will not be punished for homicide if they fail to wear their seat belt and subsequently get into a car crash that causes a miscarriage because that’s not a conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk of an illegal abortion. If a woman lets her boyfriend go fishing in her uterus with a wire hanger for fun, then yes, that would fit under the appropriate definition for recklessness in this case.
Elie, you seriously went to HLS? I won’t take issue with your spelling, because research has shown no correlation between language skills and IQ, but when you use someone else’s legal reasoning as your own, you might want to make sure it’s somewhere in the ballpark of “not completely asinine, self-serving, and retarded.” This provision will be rendered mere surplusage precisely because of it’s potentially absurd implications (did you forget that canon of statutory interpretation, Elie?). The courts will make the definition of recklessness tighter than Jebediah’s 16-year-old fourth wife.
29, 40–
Actually, the TERRITORY of Wyoming was first, the STATE of Colorado was second, and Utah was third.
As to those 29 was responding to: when you first read A Modest Proposal, did you think that Jonathan Swift was actually advocating eating children?
Hey assholes, I don’t want miscarriages to be investigated. I don’t care if you think the women won’t be convicted–you are idiots if you don’t think they’ll be charged and harassed. Do you have any idea what it is like to go through a miscarriage? Allow me to fill you in. If, like many women, you get a D&C, it hurts like a motherf*cker, even if you’re also wealthy enough to get the good drugs (that’s right, not everyone gets the same pain meds during that procedure). If, like me, it was an unplanned and really badly timed pregnancy that you didn’t originally want but eventually became resigned to, due in part to the hormones and in part to the fact that the loss of a potential child is sad, it can still really screw you up emotionally.
This bill has already passed both the house and the senate, so unless the governor vetoes, it is going through.
And 45, terminating a woman’s pregnancy, either during an assault or during a homicide of that woman does not always count as a second count of murder. In jurisdictions where it does, and where the fetus is not yet viable, you’re right that there is an inconsistency.
I think it is nuts to criminalize even self-abortion in the first two trimesters–if somebody tried to give themselves an appendectomy (srysly, don’t try that at home) would we throw them in jail? That’s idiocy.
What’s wrong with being sexy?
It has a tangential relation to abortion! Everyone overreact, quick! Make sure to unpack the slippery slope arguments before the other side does or Roberts might overturn Roe v. Madeuplaw.
RE: two counts of murder.
When a doctor cuts me with a scalpel it’s medicine but when I cut a stranger on the street with a scalpel it’s assault. How can we live with this double standard? Why does context matter?
55, I agree, but why limit your rule to just homicidal miscarriages? We should add a “suspect is not feeling well” exception to investigations for all crimes.
Police: Hey Mr. Simpson, we’re gonna investigate you about your wife’s killing.
OJ: Hey assholes, I don’t want her death to be investigated. I don’t care if you think I won’t be convicted–you are idiots if you don’t think I’ll be charged and harassed. Do you have any idea what it is like to go through a wife’s death?
@ 10 -
You’re not worth the trouble it would take to hit you. You’re not worth the powder it would take to blow you up. You are an empty, empty, hollow shell of a poster. I mean, what the hell are you doing on this blog if you hate it so much? Why the hell are you posting? What the hell are you doing in this thread? I mean, why didn’t you just leave when you had the chance? Because listen to me, listen to me, I got news for you – I wish to God that you had!
55 is right. We should also not have criminal investigations when babies drown in bathtubs. Don’t the cops know how emotionally scarring it is to drown your own baby?
GRLPWR!
@28 raises an excellent point — I also want to know Elie’s take on whether the Good Samaritan statute exposes “failed mothers” to criminal liability.
The other question I have is: When will Breaking Media punish failed bloggers?
Oh, 55, logic is lost on the troglodytes that frequent this blog. Keep in mind that you’re talking to people whose logic looks a little something like:
BABIES GOOD!
ABORTION BAD!
WOMEN BAD!
ME <3 UTAH LAW!
Besides which, it’s not like women are real people. Who gives a fuck if a few of them have to go through the unbelievable cruelty of having their miscarriages investigated? We all know that the only time being accused of a crime is The Worst Thing That Has Ever Happened is when a man is accused of rape (worse than actually being raped, even!). Am I right, fellas?
the trimester framework doesn’t exist anymore you retard olds. have you not read a case since Roe v. Wade?
Admittedly, the law is poorly drafted, but do people on this board really think its okay to beat to death a baby that is in the womb?
Hey, 65, do you really think that it’s sound policy to criminalize everything that’s not “okay?”
Elie,
If you think you have correctly defined “ute” you are not from NYC:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eIZuSMRdgk
58 – Are you as big an idiot as your post makes you seem like? One is CONSENSUAL and one is NOT. I don’t even understand how this is even an issue. A doctor cuts you open to do something to help you, when someone stabs you, it’s rarely for that purpose.
By your logic, all sex is rape because when your spouse does it, it’s sex, but when a stranger does it, it’s rape.
Your stupidity alarms me.
63, you’re absolutely right, answering a few questions from the police when you’re sad is an “unbelievable cruelty” that is far worse than a ten year prison term for a crime you did not commit.
Besides, it’s not like there are any women who have ever tried to force a miscarriage by having someone kick her in the belly, especially in the state (Utah) that we’re talking about.
Is it really accurate to call this cum dumpster a “failed mother” when she paid a man to beat her abdomen with the expressed intent of causing her pregnancy to terminate?
Nurturing Instinct = FAIL
64 = fail
66,
If it was “okay” it wouldn’t be illegal, not would it?
Dear 60:
#10 is a parody of a speach from God Father II.
You are an empty, empty, hollow shell of a poster, a bad poster.
Now go to your room.
I support abortion because we need less dumb unloved people in the world, but most of the people who support abortion (these pro-choice feminists) are really intolerant and mean.
Dear 73:
#60 is a parody of a speech from Revolutionary Road.
In ancient Rome, you know what happened when a plot against the emperor failed?
The plotters were always given a chance… to let their families keep their fortunes.
They went home… and sat in a hot bath… opened up their veins… and bled to death… and sometimes they had a little party before they did it.
69,
75% of women have a miscarriage at some point in their lives. Most miscarriages happen in the first trimester, when abortion is legal. Opening women up to investigation just because they’ve had a miscarriage, which is a very common occurrence, and suggesting that women can recklessly terminate a pregnancy and therefore be subject to liability of up to life in prison is insane.
If somebody wants to induce a miscarriage when abortion is legal, I don’t necessarily think it should even be a crime. If you think it should, please come up with reasons why.
If this law were limited to post-viability (so therefore, post-legal-abortion) conduct that was intentional or knowing, fine.
But other than that, it is subjecting a lot of women to unjustified harassment during a time of particular vulnerability.
And we don’t treat miscarried embryos like drowned babies. We don’t bury them, we don’t autopsy them, we don’t try to “cure” or prevent miscarriages. In fact, a lot of the things thought to cause miscarriages (caffeine, certain types of exercise, cocaine use) in fact do not. That doesn’t mean a jury won’t believe that they do.
It’s sad–if I hadn’t been a well-off lawyer with a sympathetic doctor, I wouldn’t have even been able to obtain the lab tests to determine why I miscarried. But I did have a nice doctor, and I paid the $400-$500 out of pocket, and so I learned why.
My mom had a miscarriage at 19 weeks–which is so late that it is practically (but not quite) a stillbirth. The fetus was perfect, and no birth defects were found. Maybe in a court of law they would have used that to say that my mother must have done something “reckless” in order for her pregnancy to have ended.
If 75% of parents had babies drown accidentally in bathtubs, your baby in a bathtub point might have some legs. (And because we consider babies actual people, those babies would be autopsied and our society would put a lot of effort into solving the problem, like we have, say, with SIDS.) But that doesn’t happen.
Wear a rubber dude.
Here’s how this will be applied:
A woman will fall in love with a man who has a history of abusing women. She will become pregnant with his child. He will beat her, causing her to miscarry. BOTH will be charged for murder, his charge based on an intentional act, her charge based on a reckless or negligence standard because she should have known he was threat to her unborn child.
Think this situation is crazy? Look up the case of Tabitha Pollock on the Northwestern Center on Wrongful Convictions website. Her boyfriend killed her toddler, and she was convicted of murder because she should have known he was a threat to her children. The case was eventually overturned both because of the silly legal standard applied to the case (intent confused with a negligence standard) , as well as factual deficiencies. The boneheaded prosecutor still thinks he got it right.
#10 FTW
76: Abortion is a medical procedure and can only be performed by a licensed professional. It would be illegal for a woman’s non-doctor boyfriend to (consensually) perform an abortion, and so it should also be illegal for the woman to procure such an abortion.
How is this so hard to understand? Have some your brains vacuumed out?
“If this law were limited to post-viability (so therefore, post-legal-abortion) conduct that was intentional or knowing, fine. ”
76- I ALMOST agree except for the potentially horrific cases that could be fanagled against innocent, grieving women. Even if it were post-viability only, the language is still too vague to protect women who have genuine accidents, stress, or medically related losses.
Who’s to say a woman with diabetes and therefore at high risk anyway couldn’t be accused for not doing MORE to care for herself during pregnancy?
Who’s to say a woman accidentally wearing a seatbelt incorrectly couldn’t be accused?
How can a court prove that a fall down the stairs fatal to a fetus was intentional?
Scary, scary stuff.
34 = jealousy
78-
Mens rea FAIL. Recklessness does not = should have known (about the substantial and unjustifiable risk). That, my friend, is criminal NEGLIGENCE. Recklessness = a conscious disregard of the substantial and unjustifiable risk.
Also, any sane judge would interpret the statute as forbidding a woman from acquiring or inducing an abortion illegally, e.g., by paying someone to kick her in the abdomen or recklessly drinking with no regard for the danger posed to the infant (which, incidentally, one of my friends’ girlfriend did by binge drinking–successfully leading to a miscarriage).
Why, do you ask, is this the case? Here’s a brief refresher in Crim Law for you: the woman has to perform a voluntary act (or omission) with the requisite mens rea that causes the social harm the crime is meant to prevent. Omissions only count if the defendant had a legal duty in the first place. There’s no legal duty between a woman and her live-in boyfriend to prevent him from beating her. That is a sick and perverse inference to draw that our legal system puts the onus of protection on domestic violence victims. Also, the statute does not create a legal duty beyond what the common law provides for.
The situation of the live-in boyfriend, therefore, fails because there is no voluntary act or omission that would lead to criminal liability. The “no seat belt” hypo (likely) fails because the requisite mens rea will probably not be proved. If a woman is worried that this might not be the case, then I say be a smart individual and wear a damn seat belt when you’re pregnant.
There are two possible reasons for Elie making this post with its inflammatory title: (1) he wants to get hits for ATL or (2) he doesn’t understand the most basic tenets of criminal law.
69, learn the difference between “accused” and “convicted,” you fucking idiot. Here’s a hint to get you started: you don’t go to jail for 10 years when you’re accused of something.
Also, do you realize how stupid your last sentence is? Hell, it’s not like no men have ever actually raped women, so we should investigate all sexual relationships, just in case. Sound good to you?
I honestly cannot believe how many people here think that inviting the government to snoop into people’s (yes, assholes, women are people) private medical business is a good idea. Aren’t you the same people who have been bleating for months about how terrible it is to have the government anywhere near people’s health care decisions? Make up your tiny minds.
-63
80,
You’re right that the boyfriend would probably get hit for something. But usually, when people treat themselves (not others, but themselves) even though they aren’t doctors, we don’t throw them in jail. Since a legal abortion is procured (in the early terms) by taking meds prescribed by a doctor, and since we don’t usually go after people who legally get ahold of non-controlled substances and take them (i.e., “research chemicals”–illegal to distribute, not illegal to use), I don’t see why that should change for abortions. For example, if I were to have birth control pills in my dresser, that I no longer take, and my sister or a female friend were to take two or three or however many it takes to make up the amount of drugs in Plan B, she wouldn’t be convicted of anything. Same if someone were to, say, use their sibling’s prescription course of antibiotics that the sibling had chosen not to use to treat their own acne.
We also don’t convict women for removing IUD’s without a doctor’s permission. That’s a procedure that again, a doctor is supposed to perform. Nor do we convict people who remove their stitches at home. Or women who take herbs in order to start menstruation to prevent a D&C (whether it is because of an incomplete miscarriage or simply a buildup of the endometrium.)
This is a stupid law that is inconsistent with the way we treat any other kind of unauthorized practice of medicine on oneself. Not that practicing medicine on oneself is necessarily a good idea. And the whole recklessness thing is all wrong. Especially because before viability, in this country, embryos and fetuses are not legally people.
These comments are getting too long. No one wants to devote 20 minutes to following a conversation between two dipshits. No one cares what you two titans of half-baked abortion debating have to say to one another. Comments should be short and to the point; a clever insult directed at Elie along with a humorous misspelling of his name will do just fine.
Man, did 46 ever nail it. Why are people that support baby-killing so damn long-winded?
Elie, I hope we can take your hostility to procreation as a sign that you are unlikely to pass along your eminently defective genes.
55 – perfect example of how emotions distort rational thinking.
“hiring a man to beat the life out of your fetus is morally reprehensible”……right, but hiring a man to suck it out with a vacuum piece by piece is a matter of “personal choice” ? this whole thing makes me sick
I love it when Elie is forced to write a piece that demands critically thinking.
It’s depressing how few people posting on here have actually read the proposed bill. Read it — it criminalizes any conduct that leads to the “death of an unborn child” unless that death resulted from a physician-supervised abortion, conscientious refusal of medical care, or the mother’s own criminally negligent conduct. 76-5-201. In other words, the bill clearly provides that a mother faces criminal liability if her reckless conduct causes her pregnancy to terminate for any reason.
All you fuckTTTards saying “it only punishes illegal abortions” are morons. Read the fucking text.
89,
Discussing the commonality, etiology, and physical/hormonal/psychological outcomes of miscarriage is not irrational. It is what people call “context” and it is something people should consider before they pass laws.
And yeah, it is an asshole move to go after someone who is suffering a physically painful life event that is not their fault, and treat it like a criminal investigation, even though embryos and fetuses are not legally persons. The recklessness standard is particularly galling.
You are not legally a person, 93. Face.
Does the state own the woman’s womb? In Utah is does.
So, is Utah going to go after polluters that release chemicals that can/may cause miscarriages?
Don’t tell a woman what to do with her body. Especially during pregnancy when her body has 4 arms, 4 legs, 2 heads, 2 heartbeats, etc.
Oh, wait. Maybe when a woman is pregnant there is more to a woman’s body than just her.
Oh, and all you people for abortion have already been born. Would you support your Mom if she aborted you?
97,
My sister’s partial molar pregnancy had a heartbeat. That’s right–cells that could be cancerous but never a baby had a heartbeat.
Once they can live on their own, fine. But when they are feeding on our bodies, and imperiling our health (and all pregnancies are hard on your health–increasing your blood volume by 10% in the first trimester alone, the effects on your immune system of carrying foreign tissue, and I could go on, are not minor things) then whether we take a pill or it just stops growing, that is not the loss of a human life. No human culture has ever treated embryos and fetuses as full people. Because they aren’t. With luck, and if the mother’s body is capable of maintaining the pregnancy, they become humans, but without luck, they either stop growing or the mother’s body can no longer sustain their growth. There is no difference between being unable to sustain the embryo or fetus, or choosing not to. We don’t mourn miscarriages at all, nor do we spend any significant research dollars understanding them. As such, mourning abortions of the non-spontaneous sort is pure hypocrisy. We value embryonic life only when to do so is to exert control over women.
Read a freaking Biology textbook.
If looked at the DNA of two sets of cells – one from a born person and one from a fetus, the DNA would be indistinguishable (for the most part, I realize few people have identical DNA). They’re both completely human and you can only guess the age by amount of damage to their DNA… even then, it’s a guess.
So, if they’re a human, at what point do they become a person? ‘Personhood’ cannot be established by science because ‘personhood’ is a philosophical question. Science defining matters of philosophy is as bad as philosophers defining matters of science.
Sure, heartbeats have been detected in tumors – did that tumor actually have its own distinct heart with its own distinct blood type running through it? Argue apples to apples. Tumors do not have a distinct set of DNA, a distinct set of organs, and can only *ever* function parasitically. Yeah, children require a lot, but I defy anyone to call children (or fetuses) parasites. (No one’s actually said that a fetus is a parasite, but it’s intimated by comparing them to a tumor.)
The only valid question to ask is: Should the rights of one human supersede the rights of another human because the latter depends utterly on the former? Some say yes, some say no.
Read a freaking Biology textbook.
If looked at the DNA of two sets of cells – one from a born person and one from a fetus, the DNA would be indistinguishable (for the most part, I realize few people have identical DNA). They’re both completely human and you can only guess the age by amount of damage to their DNA… even then, it’s a guess.
So, if they’re a human, at what point do they become a person? ‘Personhood’ cannot be established by science because ‘personhood’ is a philosophical question. Science defining matters of philosophy is as bad as philosophers defining matters of science.
Sure, heartbeats have been detected in tumors – did that tumor actually have its own distinct heart with its own distinct blood type running through it? Argue apples to apples. Tumors do not have a distinct set of DNA, a distinct set of organs, and can only *ever* function parasitically. Yeah, children require a lot, but I defy anyone to call children (or fetuses) parasites. (No one’s actually said that a fetus is a parasite, but it’s intimated by comparing them to a tumor.)
The only valid question to ask is: Should the rights of one human supersede the rights of another human because the latter depends utterly on the former? Some say yes, some say no.
99-100,
Google a freakin’ molar or partial molar pregnancy. They are conceptions gone horribly awry, that can become tumors but can never become humans. Even though they have their own separate (flawed) DNA. But partial molar pregnancies can and do have heart beats. That’s why using a heart beat as the sine qua non of “it’s human” is idiotic. Also look up–either in your biology textbook or online “fetus in fetu.” Another example of something with independent DNA that will never grown into an adult human.
What’s next .. join the Taliban .. force women to wear the burka. This law hopefully won’t stand the test of time … but before it goes down .. many women will be will be unjustly caught in it’s web.
As per my user name, I am one of eleven children born to a women who wasn’t allowed to have her tubes tied without her husbands signature until she had 9 living children (2 of the 11 died) – the results put her in an early grave.
For those who tout birth control – they are not 100% effective I have one of those children and so does my daughter — we chose to bear those children.
I love the preachers of do-good. They are daily paraded across the TV screen. They make & tout the rules and then place themselves above it. Ask Edwards, minister Baker, Jones etc. It’s the poor that are caught in the web of laws .. the rich can afford to do as they please. Rush Limbaugh is a great example of that .. you know Mr Anti-Drug until he got caught for prescription mis-use.
My last thought – I wonder how Utah would treat Jaycee Dugard ?
102 – Limbaugh was never “Mr. Anti-Drug.” He has rarely talked about drug use at all. Which you’d know if you listened to his show.
In any event, if Limbaugh said that it was a bad idea to do drugs, would his problems with pain killers affect the validity of his advice?
103,
Yes, because they make him a big fat hypocrite. He demonizes people who are addicts, stereotypes their race and their politics, but his drug addiction is somehow different and special and doesn’t make him into a bad person. Calling what he had to say about drug use “advice” is highly inaccurate.
92-
Are you seriously that stupid? This is a bill. It has not been signed by the governor. It is not codified yet. Even if it was signed into law, it would probably be in the session laws report until this year’s legislative session ended, when it would then receive a number and become codified. Please see the following if you’re confused as to how a bill becomes a law:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ
This bill, see supra, “criminaliz[es] a woman’s “intentional, knowing, or reckless act” leading to a pregnancy’s illegal termination.” Not any termination; rather, an illegal termination–one not justified by law or excused by mistake.
Why you have directed us to Utah’s criminal homicide statute and loudly proclaimed your superiority in legal research and reasoning is beyond me. Maybe in your special world, that actually counts as a valid argument; good luck in front of a judge and jury.
Please post your bar number and personal information immediately so no poor, unsuspecting bastard actually hires you to provide them with legal services.
XOXO
Haha holy shit 93 just got owned!!! That is flat-out embarrassing to make such a shitty argument a person can use Schoolhouse Rock to effectively rebut it.
EPIC FAIL
105 makes no sense. 92 referred to it as a proposed bill. The other statute was cited for another purpose.
Amazing, how someone uses schoolhouse rock to smack someone else down, and then posts a sockpuppet comment crowing over it, and is sitll wrong.