Miscarriage: Murder!

[Izzy]

I liked these too:

http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/9884/goddamit.png

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/9222/utahrush.jpg

[willriker]

The Next Anti-Choice Target: Miscarriage
A new Utah law could charge women with homicide if they miscarry, making women's rights advocates concerned that women will be brought up on murder charges for drinking, failing to wear a seatbelt, or falling down the stairs.

The bill passed Utah's state legislature last Thursday and still needs final approval by the governor, but it continues to gain attention this week for its unusually restrictive language. It doesn't address legal abortion, but allows punishment up to life in prison for an "intentional, knowing, or reckless act" that leads to a miscarriage or abortion without a doctor's supervision. Especially concerning to some Utah Democrats and many women's rights activists is the word "reckless" — writing for RH Reality Check, Rachel Larris says,

"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."

Women might also make themselves open to prosecution if they failed to wear a seatbelt and got in a car accident, if they stayed with an abusive partner, or even if they fell down the stairs, like a woman in Iowa who found herself jailed on suspicion of "attempted feticide." This woman eventually got off only because she wasn't yet in her third trimester — but unlike Iowa's feticide law, Utah's new bill would apply throughout pregnancy. Given that 15-20% of recognized pregnancies end in miscarriage, 80% of those in the first trimester, Utah could have a lot of work ahead. Dan Savage writes,

"If every miscarriage is a potential homicide, how does Utah avoid launching a criminal investigation every time a woman has a miscarriage? [...] And how is Utah supposed to know when a pregnant woman has had a miscarriage? You're going to have to create some sort of pregnancy registry to keep track of all those fetuses, Utah. Perhaps you could start issuing "conception certificates" to women who get pregnant? And then, if there isn't a baby within nine months of the issuance of a conception certificate, the woman could be hauled in for questioning and she could be indicted for criminal homicide if it's determined that she intentionally or accidentally induced a miscarriage."

Of course, Utah probably isn't going to create such a registry, but its new legislation is striking for the way it targets women themselves, as opposed to abortion providers. Lynn Paltrow, executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women, says, "For all these years the anti-choice movement has said ‘we want to outlaw abortion, not put women in jail, but what this law says is ‘no, we really want to put women in jail.'" And Jill of Feministe asks why, if anti-choice advocates are so concerned about miscarried fetuses, they aren't "trying to find a cure for the close to 50 percent of fertilized eggs that naturally don't implant, and are flushed out of the woman's body." Her answer: "the concern here isn't really about fetuses or life or any of that. It's about punishing women."

I am actualy in favor of this law. Although this article quotes in the OP is entirely missleading, and causes the reader to become emotionaly repulsed by the idea of this law. So, i cant really blame anyone from recoilling against it based on what is written here.

The truth of the matter is that this law was made in response to a 7 month pregnant woman who payed a man $100 to punch and kick her in the stomach to cause a miscarriage. This incident pointed out that, while doctors could be legal penalized for providing an abortion to a 7 month pregnant woman... there is absolutely nothing on the books to allow the prosecution of a woman, "intentional, knowing, or reckless act that leads to a miscarriage or abortion without a doctor's supervision."

Acts like cramming a wire hanger up your own vag to kill a baby will be prosecutable. Acts like hiring a man to beat the shit out of you to kill your baby will be prosecutable. Acts like trying to taking narcotics, with the intent of killing the baby, will be prosecutable.

Accidentally falling down the stairs, being a drug addict, or getting into a car accident are not prosecutable under this law. Neither is the bounds of legal abortion being challenges by this law.

The feminists are fighting a losing battle here. They are arguing against a law that actually makes sence. There should be a law on the books that will allow a woman pays a man $100 to kick and punch her 7 month prego-stomach to be put into jail. Just like current laws punish legal abortion practitioners if they abort a 7 month old unborn.

[Mizango]

Oh shut the fuck up already.

[willriker]

Oh shut the fuck up already.

No You!

(gO.o)g

[Sylphet]

Problem is that the law doesn't make sense.

The law is intentionally worded vaguely leaving it open to interpretation and subsequently (especially in Utah, let's be honest) abuse. Undoubtedly someone would try to use the law to prosecute someone who had a legitimate miscarriage because they were a religious nutbag.

Last I checked it's already against the law to punch someone, let alone a pregnant woman. Is the woman in that case at fault? of course she is, and while I'm not a lawyer I'm sure there's some sort of law that would allow her to be prosecuted as well.

Also, no idea why it hasn't been said in this thread but seriously - shit like falling down almost never causes a miscarriage. Fucking retarded people need to learn to go get their safe, legal abortions.

[zoobernut]

I was just doing it cuz poisoned is not the word I would have used ><

This has nothing to do with the thread but "poison the well" is a type of logical fallacy used in a debate similar to a straw man or ad hominem. Which is why I used that particular term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

[willriker]

Problem is that the law doesn't make sense.

The law is intentionally worded vaguely leaving it open to interpretation and subsequently (especially in Utah, let's be honest) abuse. Undoubtedly someone would try to use the law to prosecute someone who had a legitimate miscarriage because they were a religious nutbag.

Last I checked it's already against the law to punch someone, let alone a pregnant woman. Is the woman in that case at fault? of course she is, and while I'm not a lawyer I'm sure there's some sort of law that would allow her to be prosecuted as well.

Also, no idea why it hasn't been said in this thread but seriously - shit like falling down almost never causes a miscarriage. Fucking retarded people need to learn to go get their safe, legal abortions.

Yeah, there are existing laws against punching someone. The man who did the punching got into trouble. The problem aroze when the prosecution could not charge this woman with anything. And yes, i would argue that she should be in jail for what she did.

That is why this law is being pushed through.

It has nothing to do with a womans right to abortion. It has nothing to do with accidental miscarriages. It is so that women who commit an "intentional, knowing, or reckless act that leads to a miscarriage or abortion without a doctor's supervision."

If anything this law bolsters existing abortion laws. It certainly does not tear down a single one of them. Women are forced to go to a professional doctor to get an abortion. And if they wait to long to do it, long enough to where the law prevents a professional to abort the baby, then they will be prosecuted for commiting an act which would have little other purpose/effect than to deliberately cause a miscarriage.

Yeah yeah womens lib is all up in arms over it. But seriously, this is a decent law. And from what i understand, the wording in the law is actualy pretty good. It does not offer much room for interpretation. Words like Intentional, knowingly, and reckless have been in many laws before this one. And, by this point, they are rather well defined.

Furthermore, if the defense believes that they do not violate this law.. thats what trials are for.

[Sylphet]

The point is that even words like "intentional" can be abuse and there's a completely subjective interpretation of language like that.

For example:

: Pregnant woman is not wearing a seat belt and gets into a car accident and miscarries.
: If you are a drug addict who gets pregnant and are trying to kick the habit but you end up miscarrying.

Also in the case you mentioned, there was an initial attempt to charge the 17 year old with attempted murder. Really? attempted murder?

Don't think people would do that? I beg to differ:
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/arc...while-pregnant

Yes the girl in question was wrong but that doesn't mean there should be a law that could easily be used to persecute completely innocent people.

[Mizango]

Sylphet is droppin' bombs on your dome. This would spell nothing but trouble for many many people if this is law.

[willriker]

The point is that even words like "intentional" can be abuse and there's a completely subjective interpretation of language like that.

For example:

: Pregnant woman is not wearing a seat belt and gets into a car accident and miscarries.
: If you are a drug addict who gets pregnant and are trying to kick the habit but you end up miscarrying.

Also in the case you mentioned, there was an initial attempt to charge the 17 year old with attempted murder. Really? attempted murder?

Don't think people would do that? I beg to differ:
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/arc...while-pregnant

Yes the girl in question was wrong but that doesn't mean there should be a law that could easily be used to persecute completely innocent people.

You really think this law can be applied to drug addicts, or women who forget to put on a seat belt? It seems to me that the wording of this law is such that it does not allow that to happen.

[Colenzo]

holy shit, watch out narcoleptic ladies

[Mizango]

Its sad when a goddamn zygote has more rights and protection than muslims, niggas and gays combined.

"Dayum dawg, check out the furrow on that bad ass embryo over there..." I mean really? Their fucking cells for fucks sake.

[Mizango]

holy shit, watch out narcoleptic ladies

Narcoleptic miscarriages are the new Susan Smith way to go. So chic!

[Chun Liroy]

I thought this thread was gonna be semi-intelligent since Kuya posted, but then Plow poster

[Colenzo]

Narcoleptic miscarriages are the new Susan Smith way to go. So chic!

lmao "why are you here bitch?" "oh I feel asleep and fell down some stairs and miscarried"

[Acturus]

Yeah, there are existing laws against punching someone. The man who did the punching got into trouble. The problem aroze when the prosecution could not charge this woman with anything. And yes, i would argue that she should be in jail for what she did.

That is why this law is being pushed through.

It has nothing to do with a womans right to abortion. It has nothing to do with accidental miscarriages. It is so that women who commit an "intentional, knowing, or reckless act that leads to a miscarriage or abortion without a doctor's supervision."

If anything this law bolsters existing abortion laws. It certainly does not tear down a single one of them. Women are forced to go to a professional doctor to get an abortion. And if they wait to long to do it, long enough to where the law prevents a professional to abort the baby, then they will be prosecuted for commiting an act which would have little other purpose/effect than to deliberately cause a miscarriage.

Yeah yeah womens lib is all up in arms over it. But seriously, this is a decent law. And from what i understand, the wording in the law is actualy pretty good. It does not offer much room for interpretation. Words like Intentional, knowingly, and reckless have been in many laws before this one. And, by this point, they are rather well defined.

Furthermore, if the defense believes that they do not violate this law.. thats what trials are for.

I get your point of view, but what I think -isn't- being said is the explicit wording on the legislation.

I doubt it's as simple as "intentional, knowing, or reckless act that leads to a miscarriage or abortion without a doctor's supervision."

More than likely, there is (legitimate) concern for poor wording, allowing for the use of legal loopholes.

[willriker]

im sorry, but the article quoted in the OP is not a good resource to learn about this law. If you are doing anything but punching holes in that writers agruements... your doing it wrong.

[Mizango]

I have a doing it wrong?

[Mizango]

You just aborted a post. Go directly to jail.

[Colenzo]

your