How do you feel about this new Utah law about miscarriage?
Asked by
Jharty89 (
491
)
February 24th, 2010
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
85 Answers
Wow, what scares me there, is “reckless behavior”. Who gets to decide this? Utah is sounding like they’re going down the road of a bad world dominance movie.
A woman’s uterus in now at Utah-risk?
So if a woman gets in an automobile accident because she was talking on her cell phone and this results in a miscarriage, that could be defined as reckless behavior and she could be put away for, what? Life?
So if that same woman has a miscarriage because there were complications with her pregnancy and she couldn’t afford prenatal care and the government won’t pay for it, do the US Senators and Congressmen from Utah that voted against healthcare get prosecuted as well?
Fucking idiots everywhere…....stupid, stupid, stupid people flooding the earth, what a waste of human potential.
Wow… This is one giant step closer to keeping women bare foot and pregnant in the kitchen. What if she develops diabetes and some women do during pregnancy and, as @AstroChuck said, she can’t afford pre-natal care? Shit, this is the door to making women incubators and nothing more.
In all honesty, this terrifies me so much.
A part that really gets me is the ” Women in physically abusive relationships could be criminally liable for not leaving their partner, regardless of their ability to do so safely or securely. ” How could anyone agree with this stuff?
@Jharty89 I’ll tell you who: I D I O T S. Adults that have been so brainwashed by their brainwashed parents etc etc. It’s ignorant people breeding and spreading their ignorance to their kids until they aren’t able to think for themselves.
A bit excessive sounding if you ask me…
Very excessive sounding if you ask me!
Crazy. Sometimes I’m not sure what I read in the media is real or a spoof. Sad.
@dverhey: check this out
gives up trying to be an apologist for what happens in Utah’s government
It’s absolutely ridiculous. I don’t think it’s right. I am honestly speechless.
@phoenyx Many reasons to not live in Utah. Won’t women argue a little there?
Most of the women I met out there had a train of kids behind them. But my main problem us the fact that the Mormon church has influence in everything that happens out there. I don’t think I could live there because of that.
I personally wouldn’t want to be punished for having an allergic reaction to meds, and then being prosecuted. It’s horrible.
What do you expect from a State which only recently outlawed Polygamy?
I don’t get it. So people who have an accidental miscarriage are going to be treated as criminals?
That is so ridiculous.. If I lived in Utah, I would move. They need to get real. Shit happens, women lose babies. It’s always happened and it will continue to happen. You can’t blame women for having a miscarriage. That just seems so degrading to me.
@DominicX Basically, yes, they are playing hardball with accidental miscarriages!
Utah is posed to become the first state in the U.S. to criminalize miscarriage and punish women for having or seeking an illegal abortion. Utah’s “Criminal Miscarriage” law:
* expands the definition of illegal abortion to include miscarriages
* removes immunity protections for women who have or seek illegal abortions
* assumes women are “guilty of criminal homicide of an unborn child” if a pregnancy ends after “intentional, knowing, or reckless” behavior.
How do state laws and federal laws clash? Can Obama say no?
Obama can say what he wants, he can’t really do anything about Utah’s new law.
I’m not the most political but which ever case elicited this law is one in a million. If a woman intentionally rejects a pregnancy during her first (or even second) trimester, it’s choice that she has made and their should be no legal implications. This is clearly an indication of how out of touch out legal system is..if they really cared they would invest time and money into facilitating prenatal care and reducing domestic abuse
@davidbetterman
Well, that’s a little different. What I don’t get is how they’re going to prove it was the reckless behavior that caused the miscarriage. It would be ridiculous to investigate every miscarriage as possibly intentional. A miscarriage can be extremely traumatic for people. If that’s what they actually do, Utah is even crazier than I thought it was.
The Vulcan Science Directorate has determined that this is ridiculous. Do they not have the slightest bit of sense?
I give ‘em an E for effort; judging by the KOS article (never a good idea, but I don’t feel like I’ve got enough of an emotional investment to read the bill myself) their intent—increase the survival rate of the unborn—was good, but it got fouled in the actual legislation-making process.
This is just plain stupid. Can we blow up Utah now?
I saw that earlier today and I just don’t understand this. Were any of the people who wrote this law people who’ve been pregnant ever? Sometimes fetuses and embryos are incapable of developing further and spontaneously abort, usually due to massive pre-natal defects. What happens then?
@DominicX I imagine they will have to determine that circumstances were such that the mother involved in a miscarriage was being reckless (driving without a seatbelt, say) or was doing drugs or completely inebriated…The wording is open to interpretation, “intentional, knowing, or reckless” behavior.
This will undoubtedly involve doctors and hospitals to make reports of suspected reckless endangerment in re any and all cases of reported miscarriages…
Did any of you look at the text of the bill? I agree that what the article is saying sounds horrible, BUT I also thought that the article sounded suspect. This sounded like one of those cases in which people say one thing because they are concerned about another. Kind of like if someone were to write a bill called The Patriot Act so that no one would question it or be able to vote against it without committing political suicide, regardless of the content. I suspect that those who are complaining about “miscarriage being outlawed” are actually worried about the implications this has for abortions.
Anyway, if you read the bill, then you can see that this doesn’t actually cover miscarriage.
My point: this bill specifically says ”the intentional causing or attempted causing of a miscarriage through a medical procedure.” It also says ”‘Abortion’ does not include: 1) removal of a dead unborn child, 2) removal of an ectopic pregnancy, 3) or the killing or attempted killing of an unborn child without the consent of the pregnant woman.”
So, for goodness’ sake, read the bill before you take someone’s spin on it, rant to the world, and write your senator asking if we can bomb Utah.
@aidje The article clearly states, expands the definition of illegal abortion to include miscarriages
And assumes women are “guilty of criminal homicide of an unborn child” if a pregnancy ends after “intentional, knowing, or reckless” behavior.” This could mean anything, and who will decide what exactly is “intentional, knowing, or reckless” behavior?”
@davidbetterman “The article states.” As I said before: the article is misleading. Read the actual bill. If you don’t want to read the whole thing, then at least do an in-page search on the text of the bill for the word “miscarriage.”
Read what the ACLU says in the article. They practically quote me, and I didn’t read those statements until after responding here.
@davidbetterman
DailyKOS and the ACLU are both known to be left-spun. You should read the actual bill.
@davidbetterman I respectfully disagree with the ACLU on this point. A simple reading of the bill shows that there are clarifications in place beyond what is acknowledged by DailyKOS, the ACLU, or the majority of the people in this thread.
I say:
1) If one is in favor of legal abortion, then I can see how this bill would be a concern.
2) I believe that it would be a travesty to outlaw miscarriage.
3) I do not see how one can read the bill honestly and conclude that it outlaws miscarriage.
4) If one is concerned about threats to legal abortion, then one should argue the actual point rather than pretending that the bill attempts to outlaw miscarriage.
@aidje I just got done reading the bill, and there are some extremely iffy parts; regardless of whether or not someone is pro-choice. The area which talks about using a vehicle as a means of homicide has many scary gray areas. For instance, how could a pregnant woman who was driving and happened to get into an accident, who lost her baby, prove that it was truly an accident? It’s way, way too iffy to be put through.
What’s next? Them outlawing pregnant women from driving a car? Or even being a passenger in a car? No fucking way. That bill is presented well, just so people think it’s nothing to worry about.
And do you have a link to the actual law, or do you just intend to insult me yet not provide a link?
76–5-201. Criminal homicide—Elements—Designations of offenses.
(1) (a) [A] Except as provided in Subsections (3) and (4), a person commits criminal homicide if [he] the person intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, with criminal negligence, or acting with a mental state otherwise specified in the statute defining the offense, causes the death of another human being, including an unborn child at any stage of its development.
...
3) A person is not guilty of criminal homicide of an unborn child if the sole reason for the death of the unborn child is that the person:
(a) refused to consent to:
(i) medical treatment; or
(ii) a cesarean section; or
(b) failed to follow medical advice.
(4) A woman is not guilty of criminal homicide of her own unborn child if the death of her unborn child:
(a) is caused by a criminally negligent act of the woman; and
(b) is not caused by an intentional, knowing, or reckless act of the woman.
76–7-301.5. Relationship to criminal homicide.
(2) The killing or attempted killing of a live unborn child in a manner that is not an abortion shall be punished as provided in Title 76, Chapter 5, Part 2, Criminal Homicide.
…provides that a woman is not guilty of criminal homicide of her own unborn child if
the death of her unborn child:
is caused by a criminally negligent act of the woman; and
is not caused by an intentional, knowing, or reckless act of the woman;
This is completely misleading and requires a legal wizard to split those hairs, even knowing the definition of criminally negligent versus reckless act.
Obviously, the ACLU is right on point in their argument regarding this new, opaque law-to-be.
In my estimation, a pregnant women climbing on a ladder to attach curtains is reckless, so if she falls down and a miscarriage ensues, under this law she would be guilty of criminal homicide, so in that regard the article is right on the money.
@ragingloli Okay, but what else would be considered reckless? Walking down the sidewalk, on a busy street? Exercising? Driving a car, or driving in a car?
The bill presents things in such a way that nothing can be determined or sure – and that’s exactly why it’s so scary.
@DrasticDreamer
Exactly. To me the law is formulated in such a way that it makes it easy for the prosecution to achieve a guilty verdict, by leaving the definitions and conditions so vague that they are easily interpreted to be fitting a large variety of circumstances.
Ahh the Utah saints.What can you do for me? Fuck all apparently.
Utah….. Americans very own slice of Saudi Arabia!
Actually, Utah isn’t the first state to do this. One of the Southern states was considering a similar law a few years ago (between 2004–2006). My reaction is the same today as it was back then. That’s an ill-advised, misogynistic law. As others have stated, how does one define “recklessness” according to the law? I guess pregnant women should just go into confinement as they did during Jane Austen’s time. Would that make the lawmakers happy?
As aprilsimmel pointed out, miscarriages are usually accidents of nature. How does one make a law against nature? Even if a woman did intentionally miscarry, she should not be punished, because she must be in pretty dire straits to consider such an option. The mental distress caused by a miscarriage is severe enough without the threat of legal punishment. If the lawmakers truly cared about protecting the life of the unborn, they’d extend social support networks for women (i.e. shelters for victims of domestic violence and health care assistance for poor women). Because they are more concerned with prosecuting women than with trying to prevent miscarriages, that tells me that the goal of this law is to punish women.
Any supreme court in any civilized country will terminate such ridiculous laws.
My mother had a miscarriage before I was born. Imagine if she had been sent to jail for something like that! I would likely never have been born, and I wouldn’t be able to share my awesome answers with you! :P
No, seriously. Considering how many pregnancies naturally do not come to term, it seems like Utah is trying to impose their own version of contraception. Certainly I would be less likely to try and get pregnant in Utah if there was a risk I would be punished as a criminal if I miscarried. I thought Mormons liked to procreate…?
@mattbrowne Don’t be absurd. The US Supremes are so riddled by corruption and politics that they recently voted to allow corporations to buy elections.
Your statement makes you a candidate for one of the justice’s seats.
@davidbetterman – Well, some folks in the US Supreme Court will eventually retire and get replaced. Reason will prevail.
I thank you @ragingloli for actually putting that portion here for us to see.
1. It is said “of another human being, including an unborn child at any stage of its development.” I do not accept that ‘any stage of development’ means a ‘human being’ so that right there, throws this out of the window for me because I don’t need some dumb-ass state like Utah to decide this based on their very clearly religious argument.
2. 4) A woman is not guilty of criminal homicide of her own unborn child if the death of her unborn child:
(a) is caused by a criminally negligent act of the woman; and
(b) is not caused by an intentional, knowing, or reckless act of the woman.
I don’t get how 4a is not a contradiction of the whole damn thing, to begin with. Why would a woman not be guilty if the death of her unborn child resulted from a criminally negligent act but would be guilty if she committed a reckless act? I can see where these vague definitions can be used against women, to police their bodies and decisions. This disgusts me.
This is just another sick attempt at legislating religious dogma. Some poor woman is going to have to suffer at the hands of the legal system before the courts slap this down. This is a classic case of government sticking its nose where it doesn’t belong.
@mattbrowne but at what cost and given how much time will pass before it prevails, some people will get screwed.
@Simone_De_Beauvoir – Well, democracy sometimes takes strange directions. Till the law gets overruled people from Utah can only leave the state. Sad, I know. I’m not sure massive protests in Salt Lake City would make a lot of sense. But demonstrations are a democratic right. Even in Utah.
@davidbetterman I linked to the bill in my first post. I had followed the link to it from the DailyKOS article. I’m so done with this thread.
At its heart, the law appears to be attempting to extend legal protection from child endangerment to the unborn. Not a bad idea, all things considered.
@Nullo when the law will be used (and I hope it never goes through) no one will use it for what at ‘its heart’ (what does that ever have to do with laws) because women will just be criminalized for all sorts of things that can fall into the vague language.
@Nullo This is actually an attempt to control women…
@mattbrowne That is just silly to believe that one day reason will prevail on the US Supreme Court. It has not prevailed since Burger was Chief Justice. You must live outside of the USA.
I have a diverse array of facepalms and yet I can’t find one to convey the degree of fail here.
At this point, with so many states trying to legislate morality, maybe it’s time we just did away with the federal government and became as fractured as parts of Eastern Europe. You know; the places where every who can flees from and the central government is left weak and ineffectual by the lack of revenue from the few (often poor) people who remain.
If Utah wants to be absurd, let them… but make it clear that being that far removed from the rest of the US means that they are no longer part of it.
@davidbetterman “That is just silly to believe that one day reason will prevail on the US Supreme Court.”
I think most people in the US would agree with you on that, though I don’t know how many would stop at Burger. Personally, I don’t know how much sense they’ve made since Fuller!
@jerv LOL…I completely forgot about Melville. Of course, we are going way back to dredge him up (Chief Justice of the United States between 1888 and 1910).
I’ll withhold comment until the rumor has been around long enough to make it to Snopes.com
I don’t see how it can be enforced as the US Constitution guarantees protection from cruel and unusual punishment. I would think I would think this law would fall under those terms. It’s the same reason you can’t enforce some of these crazy laws you hear about (such as you can’t eat oranges in the bathtub, etc.).
Utah legislators are a compelling argument for mandatory abortion.
@Val123- Unfortunately this is no urban legend. The bill passed through the Utah state legislature’s House and Senate and is just awaiting a signature from the governor. But even if he refused to sign it since the bill passed 59–12 in the House and and 24–4 in the Senate the votes are there to override it.
@Simone_De_Beauvoir
@davidbetterman
It is not uncommon for the intent of a law to differ from its outcome. Look at all the noise just over the first few amendments to the Constitution! Freedom of speech has been expanded into general-purpose freedom of expression, freedom of religion is bound by the rules of Pee Cee (which is itself a case of good intention gone wrong), the courts can’t decide if the Second Amendment still belongs, and that’s just what I keep tabs on.
@davidbetterman Sounds a bit weak if its purpose is to control women, so I’m not buying it.
@davidbetterman – I do, actually. And right now it seems that Europeans are more optimistic about America’s future than Americans themselves. Your country overcame slavery and segregation and widespread discrimination. Your country sent people to the moon. You will be able to handle the fanaticism of religious nutcases. But it requires patience.
@mattbrowne
Eradicate religion, more like. :\
First they came for the Mormons…
@Nullo – Wanting to eradicate religion is a fanatic approach. Fanaticism begets more fanaticism, which would mean the people in charge of Utah would create even more radical laws meeting the perceived threat. The key to a better future is breaking this vicious circle. Moderation is key.
@mattbrowne Unfortunately, Americans seem to have no idea what moderation is. We have monster trucks, the BK Quad Stacker, and Glen Beck.
I agree that this vicious circle needs to be broken, but look at how we’ve “progressed” in the last 20 years and I think you will at least have to take a second to hang your head.
As for eradicating religion, remember that (according to G.W. Bush) Wicca is not a religion. Whoever is in office gets to determine what is/isn’t a valid belief system, and while we haven’t (yet) gone as far as Orwellian brainwashing, there is no doubt that there are certain religious beliefs that are not tolerated. Sometimes the law truly is intended for the betterment of society in an ecumenical/secular way, but sometimes it’s just some official’s way of forcing their ideology down people’s throats.
This law, I feel, could easily become the latter. It may be well-intended, but between the way it is written and some of the other things that have happened in Utah, I think it safe to say that they are trying to form a Theocracy.
@jerv I best like religions where the female eats the cubs as a sacrament. Paganism is a bit slow for me. The Chinese have a saying. “even a tiger will not eat its cubs”
Ya know… – this issue just keeps coming up. Could it be that everyone likes cranky suppressed barefoot pregnant women. Ya know, I don’t think that’s it. Sometimes you are obligated to stand up and protest even at the expense of your own life.
No the answer is simple.
Wear a fucking condom! If you prefer we could mandate sterilization at the second abortion.
Maybe those protesters of human abuse should just shut up and let the ovens run.
Guys – having sex with a pro-choice woman is murder.
It’s simple. NO SEX.
Why shouldn’t a woman be punished for seeking to or obtaining an “illegal” abortion?
What these religious nutcases don’t realize is that miscarriages happen in nature without “reckless” behavior, so that means God allows them to happen. There’s no way you can prove “reckless” behavior caused the miscarriage, so this law is bullshit. I recently read a story about a woman who had a miscarriage and apparently they were thinking that her visit to a hot tub might have caused it, but it can’t be proven. Should she be arrested?
I think lets kick some ass! (and not utah ass either)
@thriftymaid because it’s not up to you decide – why should you be the judge?
There is a belief that stillborn babies are so because no soul chose to inhabit the body. In this belief no baby is a person until it breathes.
@Simone_De_Beauvoir No judgment. If the law is broken then the appropriate punishment is in order.
@thriftymaid Blindly following laws will lead to more heartache than breaking some of them, if necessary.
Getting rid of an unwanted pregnancy is a choice. Unfortunately, this law isn’t even touching on the issue of abortion. It’s basically saying that if a woman has a miscarriage (which in most cases happens because of natural causes) they will be punished for it. Really? Should a woman be punished because her body was unable to carry this pregnancy the whole way? I don’t know what planet these people are from but where I come from some women have very difficult pregnancies and they have miscarriages doing the most normal things. This law is ridiculous and these people need to stop being so critical about this issue. Women will have miscarriages, women will have abortions no matter how many laws they pass. Trying to scare women into having a baby that they probably can’t take care of is cruel not only for the mother but more so for the child.
@kheredia
Unless I am mistaken, it says that if a woman deliberately does something that causes a miscarriage, she gets in trouble for it. It’s a good idea, from the pro-life angle (that is, the unborn have certain rights to life). However, it suffers from the same weakness as the hate-crimes legislation: one cannot see into the mind of the accused.
@thriftymaid Laws are not objective – never have been. Abortion is not illegal so no one breaks a law if they get one and it shouldn’t be made illegal so that we don’t have to punish people for no good reason.
@jerv – It’s not politicians who define what is a religion and what isn’t. They have to rely on expert opinions from scholars and jurisconsults/lawyers. This is important because western democracies typically have constitutions which guarantee the freedom of religion. And there must be certain criteria otherwise everybody could found a new religion and the mere claim would be enough. Suppose a few Flutherites found a religion called Lurvnuism and the key ritual to worship Lurvana is smoking weed on a full moon. Well, would it be legal to smoke cannabis? Is this ritual protected by the freedom of religion?
Under US Federal law, employers generally cannot discriminate against employees on the basis of race, sex, age, disability and many other factors. Same in Europe.
I’ve heard of a recent case in Europe when a woman who graduated in Catholic theology applied for a job as a priest which the church denied. She filed a lawsuit with the European Court of Justice claiming that the European anti-discrimination laws had been violated by the Catholic Church. I’m not sure how this will end but obviously there’s a legal conflict between freedom of religion and discrimination. So if Lurvnuism is officially recognized as a religion in the US and Europe smoking weed should become legal for Lurvana worshipers. At least on a full moon.
You also have to take into consideration that a great deal of our laws are based in morality and “the reasonable man.”
@mattbrowne That assumes that legislators (a specific type of politician whose job it is to make the laws (including the legal definitions)) actually listen to those experts. And of course, here in America a fat wallet speaks louder than practically any amount of brainpower :P
There is a bit of truth to what you are saying, but I think you are overlooking that the people who make those standards have a lot of power. By the same token, look at the fun Toyota had getting into NASCAR; a sanctioning body that made rules that didn’t actually target Toyota specifically, but made it impossible for Toyota to compete for a while.
You know, most women have miscarriages at some point or another. Sometimes before they even know they’re pregnant. Utah is retarded.
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
