Utah to Criminalize Miscarriage

lilboo

CAGiversary!
Feedback
41 (100%)
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2...Utah-defines-miscarriage-as-criminal-homicide

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Just read that.
This is what made me mad.

Utah's "Criminal Miscarriage" Law passed the Utah House and Senate by overwhelming majorities. Seriously overwhelming. The votes were 59-12 and 24-4, respectively, meaning that even if Gov. Herbert were to veto the bill (he won't) the legislature could easily override his veto.

:rofl:.. like.. this isn't the theory of 1 crackpot, like.. a lot of people agreed?!

WHY are people insane???
 
There are items of substance to be discussed in this bill (it appears to be overly restrictive on abortion, in my reading). I don't think "OMG MISCARRIAGE IS ILLEGAL IN UTAH" is one of them. Did you read the bill, or stop at the Dailykos?
 
you should read the entire bill if you haven't.

As someone who just dealt with a miscarriage a few months ago, I'm utterly disgusted at what comes across as DailyKos appearing to twist this just like the healthcare "death panels" were by Palin and segments of the rightwing.

If you wanted to stretch parts of the bill and stick them in the hands of a activist lawyer I'm sure he could make a fucking spectacle of it all.
 
I haven't read the bill, but from teh DailyKos page, it says this:
assumes women are "guilty of criminal homicide of an unborn child" if a pregnancy ends after "intentional, knowing, or reckless" behavior.

My guess is that they want to hold the woman responsible if she's knowingly involved in risky behavior that ends up in a miscarriage. There was probably a precedent for this to happen, as these things aren't usually pulled from thin-air.
 
Look out, men of Utah. Jackin' off comes next in that line of thinking as punishable.

Geez. The Mormons are that scared of dying out, huh? It's not enough you guys marry eight women, some of whom might be cousins?

China's gonna be pretty happy when they finally cash in their chips. We've prepared a state right up the alley for them.

/tries to think of more snarky things to say
 
The bill said nothing about miscarriage. It basically said that you can't try and do an illegal abortion and expect to get away scot free.
 
[quote name='depascal22']The bill said nothing about miscarriage. It basically said that you can't try and do an illegal abortion and expect to get away scot free.[/QUOTE]

Can a woman go skydiving while pregnant?
 
(4) A woman is not guilty of criminal homicide of her own unborn child if the death of
55h her unborn child:
55i (a) is caused by a criminally negligent act of the woman; and
55j (b) is not caused by an intentional, knowing, or reckless act of the woman.
So Utah judges now decide what is intentional, knowing, or a reckless act.
A person is not guilty of criminal homicide of an unborn child if the sole reason for
55b the death of the unborn child is that the person:
55f (b)failed to follow medical advice.
But the writers of the law found time to make sure that nutjobs that ignore doctors and have their babies die as a result are exempted. What kind of crazy are we talking about here? Oh right. Utah. A state full of self healing nutters.

This happened because some woman had some dude kick her ass so she would miscarry. Rather than throw her ass in a mental ward for a month and call it a day (or better yet, mind their own fuckin business), we get overly restrictive laws from the fetus fetishists.
 
[quote name='speedracer']So Utah judges now decide what is intentional, knowing, or a reckless act.[/QUOTE]

Don't they do that already? mens rea?

I can shrug my shoulders in support, but don't see this as outrageous as others here seem to.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Don't they do that already? mens rea?[/QUOTE]
Apparently there was nothing on the books that they could use to go after this chick that got punched (who allegedly asked for it, literally).

This seems like one of those devil in the details kind of cases from a state about as hostile to abortion rights as possible. I agree it doesn't look particularly damning on the face, but I'd be interested to see how the state courts interpret it.
 
There's some scary leverage for exploitation of the latter.

But I suspect if it's applied in the way some people fear (women convicted of homicide b/c of a miscarriage they weren't in control of, charged with "reckless," doubly victimizing women by virtue of the criminalization of something they would be devastated by no less - the loss of a child), the backlash will be swift and certain. Just like Beccaria wanted.

But I've been known to be naive before.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Can a woman go skydiving while pregnant?[/QUOTE]

Well, it's not illegal. A doctor could say no and according to the law, she's free to ignore that.

Unless you can find the Utah law that makes it illegal.
 
much worse than the bill & those who voted for it are the spin-crazy tools trying to pretend it's something it's not.

and even if the law was as extreme as the dailykos is trying to portray it, it's a state law that doesnt violate any human rights or our constitution. utah is pretty homogeneous, if they decide it's immoral and against societal values to act reckless while pregnant, well, it's no different than some areas outlawing certain types of porn that the local community considers too immoral. laws should be local. they have different values than you -- that doesn't mean anybody is right or wrong about it, it's just differences in opinion by region. the lamest thing kos said was "Utah conservatives love to legislate their twisted version of morality -- but they hate it when the rest of the country calls them out on their bigotry. So that's exactly what we need to do." Honestly, that line right there made me take mental note of the "Amplify Your Voice" author to be sure i never again waste my time considering any bullshit they write as a valid thought.

[quote name='Dead of Knight']This just seems like a really slippery slope.... Leave it to one asshole bigot judge to interpret this to the extreme.[/QUOTE]

no more so than any other law that requires judgment
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Can a woman go skydiving while pregnant?[/QUOTE]

yes.


i just skimmed over the bill and it looks like the only time a woman could be charged with this is if she got an illegal abortion or the baby was killed during another criminal act.
 
It's been a while, is this the return of culture wars? Got to love the political Mormons, they're always asking for tolerance while at the same time enacting theocratic law in the home court, busing anti-gay rights activists all over America, and making a point to exclude those of non-Abrahamic religions.

The other would be former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, who fell far short of the prize in 2008, but whose legendary self-discipline has put him in a strong position for 2012.
The trouble is that Romney has already declared war on secular America. In December 2007, you may recall, he delivered a speech in which he defended his Mormon religion at a time when he was under assault from evangelical Christians. It was, in many respects, a sensible plea for religious tolerance.
Except that Romney called for tolerance only among believers, explicitly omitting non-believers. "Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me," Romney said. "And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: we do not insist on a single strain of religion – rather, we welcome our nation's symphony of faith."
As New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote the next day, "Romney described a community yesterday. Observant Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Jews and Muslims are inside that community. The nonobservant are not. There was not even a perfunctory sentence showing respect for the nonreligious." Brooks – a conservative, though a secular one – warned that Romney was calling for "a culture war without end".

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/feb/23/republicans-religion-secular-america
 
The dailykos just couldn't get any worse.

The origins of this bill are here. A 17 year old girl paid a friend to beat the shit out of her with the intention of hoping it caused a miscarriage. It caused a huge uproar because there was no law to prosecute anyone for attempted murder (or something like that).

Anyway, put this shit into context.

The religious bigotry and polygamy jokes never get old though (/sarcasm).
 
From the bill itself:

This bill amends provisions of the Utah Criminal Code to describe the difference
14 between abortion and criminal homicide of an unborn child and to remove prohibitions
15 against prosecution of a woman for killing an unborn child or committing criminal
16 homicide of an unborn child.
Soooo... Basically it would makes it illegal to have an illegal abortion.
 
No. It makes getting an illegal abortion a felony. It was probably a misdemeanor or a lower class felony before. It also implicates the other people that help you get the abortion and allows for the maternal grandparents of the unborn child to sue for damages.
 
[quote name='Dead of Knight']This just seems like a really slippery slope.... Leave it to one asshole bigot judge to interpret this to the extreme.[/QUOTE]

Well, one of the most popular political blogs in the nation did, so we've already demonstrated how easy it is... ;)
 
[quote name='speedracer']So Utah judges now decide what is intentional, knowing, or a reckless act.[/QUOTE]

Not as much as you'd think. More like they decide what a substantial risk and reasonable certainty are. Or at least what they're going to tell a jury they are.

A person engages in conduct:
(1) Intentionally, or with intent or willfully with respect to the nature of his conduct or to a result of his conduct, when it is his conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result.
(2) Knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to his conduct or to circumstances surrounding his conduct when he is aware of the nature of his conduct or the existing circumstances. A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to a result of his conduct when he is aware that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result.
(3) Recklessly with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.

http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE76/htm/76_02_010300.htm
 
[quote name='depascal22']No. It makes getting an illegal abortion a felony. It was probably a misdemeanor or a lower class felony before. It also implicates the other people that help you get the abortion and allows for the maternal grandparents of the unborn child to sue for damages.[/QUOTE]

It all sounds good up until that point... so weird...
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Name some others. And while your at it, explain what's crazy about this.[/QUOTE]

Well, but, you know, DailyKos said so and all. :roll:
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Name some others. And while your at it, explain what's crazy about this.[/QUOTE]

It seems bizarre to punish a woman who kills her child in utero because she didn't kill the child in utero the right way when the law of the land says she can kill the child in utero.
 
You can take stray animals to the shelter where, if they can't find them a home or deem the animal unfit, it'll be put to death.

You can't stick the stray into a microwave.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']It all sounds good up until that point... so weird...[/QUOTE]

I should've clarified if the pregnant girl was under 18. They were more than likely to take over as "parents" anyway so it would make sense to give them more legal rights.
 
'eh... still seems strange to me. What, parents are going to sue their own child for "damages" when the grandchild itself would have actually cost them more in the long run? I just dunno...
 
[quote name='UncleBob']You can take stray animals to the shelter where, if they can't find them a home or deem the animal unfit, it'll be put to death.

You can't stick the stray into a microwave.[/QUOTE]

That's a bad example for me. An animal is a piece of property.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']That's a bad example for me. An animal is a piece of property.[/QUOTE]

Some people feel the same about a fetus.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Name some others. And while your at it, explain what's crazy about this.[/QUOTE]

Reductions in education spending traditionally take the form of cutting teachers, administration or salaries. But with Utah's $700 million deficit lingering over lawmaker's heads, a new proposal has recently attracted as much curiosity as disdain: Make 12th grade optional.

www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/02/16/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6213596.shtml

[Utah] State law only allows for 545 restaurants to serve liquor with a meal and for 361 bars to do so without one. Utah has a population of 2.8 million and encompasses more than 82,000 square miles.
Following last year's changes, Democratic Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker sensed there was momentum to continue rewriting liquor laws. He recently ended a ban on allowing more than two bars per block in the city in an effort to generate a vibrant scene downtown. Tourists here frequently wander aimlessly in search of a watering hole. But now that the restriction on the number of bars allowed downtown has been removed, he's found the state doesn't have any more liquor licenses for bars to hand out.
Lisa Marcy, an attorney and spokeswoman for the bar industry's Utah Hospitality Association, said legislators are being inconsistent with calls for encouraging business growth while at the same time restricting it.

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9E385481.htm

While the Utah Legislature overwhelmingly passed Sen. Margaret Dayton's anti-federal government message bill exempting Utah-made firearms from federal regulations, a national advocacy group says the Beehive State already has the weakest gun laws in the nation.
A report issued by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence rated Utah zero out of a possible 100 points in terms of the strength of its gun laws.
The laxity, according to the report, helps feed the illegal gun market and allows the sale of guns without background checks.
Individual scores among the states ranged from 0 to 79. Utah was the only state that got a zero.
"Because Utah does not require Brady criminal background checks on all firearm sales, including those at gun shows, gun traffickers can easily funnel illegal guns to felons and gang members," said Gary Sackett, spokesman for the Gun Violence Prevention Center of Utah. "Utah legislators have done nothing in the past to stop the flow of illegal guns within the state, such as closing the loophole that allows dangerous people to walk into gun shows and buy guns without background checks."

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_14428652

Me, I don't want to argue crazy. Crazy in modern America is a relative term. Let's just call this food for thought.

Innovative policy from some freedom-loving open-minded Americans? Something tells me no...
 
[quote name='UncleBob']You can take stray animals to the shelter where, if they can't find them a home or deem the animal unfit, it'll be put to death.

You can't stick the stray into a microwave.[/QUOTE]

A better argument would be that "abortion" is a medical procedure, and you can't perform a medical procedure without a license.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']12 grade optional, well thats a fantastic idea.[/QUOTE]

'meh - My Senior year would have been better spent at college. Even a community college.

If the student is advanced enough, is there really any reason to hold them for another year?
 
[quote name='Cantatus']A better argument would be that "abortion" is a medical procedure, and you can't perform a medical procedure without a license.[/QUOTE]

I have an ingrown toenail. I could remove it. When I remove the root of the toenail from my body, it will die.

If a woman removes a different collection of cells we call a fetus or a baby from her body, it will most likely die.

Should I go to jail for removing my toenail from my body because I don't have a medical license?
 
www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/02/16/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6213596.shtml
Buttars is the craziest person in the state senate, he regularly makes remarks that get him in trouble or make headlines like this. Although, I have to be honest - who actually thought the 12th grade was productive in any way other than those in Athletics?


http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9E385481.htm
I guess Utah liquor laws are not "normal" comparatively, but they don't bother me.


http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_14428652
As much as I might occasionally be inconvenienced if there were background checks at gun shows, I would not mind it. That being said, lax gun laws = freedom in my book


Innovative policy from some freedom-loving open-minded Americans? Something tells me no...
I'll agree - to an extent - with the liquor law thing. However, I don't quite understand how lax gun laws and strict liquor laws can both be anti-freedom. I also don't see what dude that wants to remove the 12th grade somehow being not for freedom.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I'll agree - to an extent - with the liquor law thing. However, I don't quite understand how lax gun laws and strict liquor laws can both be anti-freedom. I also don't see what dude that wants to remove the 12th grade somehow being not for freedom.[/QUOTE]

In my desire to be edgy and sarcastic my post lost precision.

They've got the loosest gun laws in the nation, they also have some of the most stringent liquor controls. They're forcing women to have their babies yet they're in the hole and talking about cutting education.

It's not about freedom, it's about a Mormon majority putting in place the religious laws they want while telling the fed to get lost (isn't the first time either)
 
[quote name='UncleBob']'eh... still seems strange to me. What, parents are going to sue their own child for "damages" when the grandchild itself would have actually cost them more in the long run? I just dunno...[/QUOTE]

It's not about cost when it comes to children. That's especially true where you live in a community where four and five bedroom rentals have to be made available because all those crazy Mormons have big families.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I have an ingrown toenail. I could remove it. When I remove the root of the toenail from my body, it will die.

If a woman removes a different collection of cells we call a fetus or a baby from her body, it will most likely die.

Should I go to jail for removing my toenail from my body because I don't have a medical license?[/QUOTE]

Yes, because those are clearly comparable. Removing one "collection of cells" from your body obviously does not give you the knowledge and ability to remove all "collections of cells" safely from your body. Removing an ingrown toenail is unlikely to result in death, sepsis, loss of reproductive ability, etc. Just the same, you shouldn't attempt removing your own gall bladder or excise a tumor.

Also, there are much easier ways to treat an ingrown toenail at home (such as soaking it), which most doctors would recommend unless the toe was infected. I'm sure you'd be hard pressed to find a doctor which would recommend you perform an abortion on yourself. First aid and surgery are two completely different things.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I have an ingrown toenail. I could remove it. When I remove the root of the toenail from my body, it will die.

If a woman removes a different collection of cells we call a fetus or a baby from her body, it will most likely die.[/QUOTE]

As if those things were close to the same. A newborn baby, if not cared for by someone, will die. He/she is still a human being and not a "collection of cells."
 
[quote name='elprincipe']As if those things were close to the same. A newborn baby, if not cared for by someone, will die. He/she is still a human being and not a "collection of cells."[/QUOTE]

Pretty sure he was talking about the zygote/embryo/early fetus, not a baby.
 
[quote name='camoor']Pretty sure he was talking about the zygote/embryo/early fetus, not a baby.[/QUOTE]

I find abortion barbaric and wasteful, but, according to the law of the land, the collection of cells making up a fetus have no more legal rights than a collection of cells making up a toenail until said fetus is removed from the host body via birth.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Actually, it becomes a person after three months. You can only get first trimester abortions under normal circumstances.[/QUOTE]

When does it get a SSN?
 
bread's done
Back
Top