Proposed Utah Law - Women who Suffer Miscarriage May Face Possible Criminal Prosecution

The Independent/Notoriously Conservative ^ | 03 01 10 | Notoriously Conservative

[Notoriously Conservative]

A proposed Utah law that would open women who suffer a miscarriage to possible criminal prosecution and life imprisonment has enraged feminists and civil rights activists across the United States.

Adopted overwhelmingly by both sides of the state legislature in Salt Lake City earlier this month, the draft bill is now awaiting the signature of the state's Republican Governor, Gary Herbert. It is not clear if the growing national controversy surrounding the proposed law will slow or even stay his pen.

While the main thrust of the law is to enable prosecutors in the majority-Mormon state to pursue women who seek illegal, unsupervised forms of abortion, it includes a provision that could trigger murder charges against women found guilty of an "intentional, knowing or reckless act" that leads to a miscarriage. Some say this could include drinking one glass of wine too many, walking on an icy pavement or skiing.

Lawmakers were responding to the case of a 17-year-old pregnant Utah woman who paid a man $150 to assault her physically in the hope that the beating would cause her to miscarry. The child was born anyway and put up for adoption. And while the man involved is currently behind bars, prosecutors found they had no basis in state law to prosecute the young woman. She was in her seventh month when she tried to terminate her pregnancy.

Last-minute efforts to remove reference in the bill to "reckless" acts failed, feeding the uproar about a law that some people say would be impossible to implement and threatens basic freedoms of women. Statistics suggest that 15 to 20 per cent of recognised pregnancies end in miscarriage. "This creates a law that makes any pregnant woman who has a miscarriage potentially criminally liable for murder," said Missy Bird, director of Planned Parenthood Action Fund of Utah, part of the national organisation that champions abortion rights.

Critics also note that the bill has no exemptions for women who suffer domestic abuse or who have addiction problems. They wonder, for example, about the putative case of a woman remaining with an abusive partner and suffering a miscarriage after an episode of violence. Would remaining in that relationship constitute "reckless" behaviour, they ask?

[brwnsuga]

this can’t be real

[GreyFriar]

Sounds like there has to be a conspiracy to kill the baby. Hopefully it will be laid out that women who have natural miscarriages, as my first wife had, will be exempt.

[OldNavyVet]

An appropriate title for this matter is

None Dare Call it Slavery.

[brwnsuga]

this can’t be real

[Notoriously Conservative]

I believe you are right, it has to be suspicious, and cause for concern that it might have been purposeful.

[achilles2000]

“this can’t be real”

It isn’t. It’s just propaganda by a friend of the pro-murder lobby.

[brwnsuga]

It isn’t. It’s just propaganda by a friend of the pro-murder lobby.

That sounds about right, then.

[Mrs. Don-o]

It seems to be a satire, but one can't be sure. Pro-abortion feminists have often, in the past, tried to portray any child-protective legislation as being a threat to women's lives and liberty.

Any argument that can be adduced against protecting the child prenatally, could be applied postnatally as well. For instance, acting either deliberately or recklessly and causing the death of a newborn is illegal. One could try to argue that this "exposes women who suffer stilbirth to possible criminal charges," but of course it doesn't --- unless there is evidence of criminal abuse or neglect.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

Not a good law, but for other reasons. During pregnancy, and for a while thereafter, a small percentage of women can go temporarily insane due to extreme hormonal fluctuations.

And having met one severe example of this, I do not use the words “temporarily insane” lightly. She ambushed and attempted to kill her husband while in a shrieking rage, in which she was incoherent and unresponsive. When properly medicated, she was back to normal.

This is not a good reason to criminally punish someone.

To make matters worse, the number one form of mental illness is severe depression and despondency, not a good frame of mind to be in when undergoing a major physical and psychological stress.

The law should be rewritten so that women in the later stages of pregnancy, or for a few weeks thereafter, if they attempt some action like this, they should be given a physical and psychological examination. And only if they are shown to be normal should there be any criminal evaluation made about this type of behavior.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Mine at #9.

[Ayn And Milton]

For once, the feminists and activists are right. If I understand the story correctly, and excuse me the pun, after the law having been passed the road is wide open for any kind of legal miscarriages.

Anyone with an IQ above 80 can willfully construe a case against a woman who lost a child this way. The possibilities for lying and setting someone up are literally endless. One just needs to be skilled in ‘creating the proper context’ and find one or two others prepared to bear false witness.

This is a prime example of good intentions having hellish consequences.

[a fool in paradise]

Lawmakers were responding to the case of a 17-year-old pregnant Utah woman who paid a man $150 to assault her physically in the hope that the beating would cause her to miscarry.

The Left is in hysterics if they think this should be a protected "right".

[Tennessee Nana]

Its OK to have an abortion and deliberately murder your unborn baby in Utah...

and Romney “sustains” Roe V Wade...

Just dont have an a unplanned and unavoidable miscarriage and lose the baby you are looking forward to...

Something is sick in that state...

[Blood of Tyrants]

Of course not. It is an attempt by the feminazis to try to kill an pro-life law.

[acipher]

This is a pro-life law. Here is a link to the bill itself.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Upon second reading (the original article is in The Independent, U.K.) I ccan see it's plainly a propaganda hit-piece. The Independent is a left-wing British paper (polling data shows that 75% of their readership is drawn form the Liberal-Democrat and Labour Parties) now in bitter competititon with The Guardian, (even further left.) This gives you a little context.

The other thing you should notice is that the only "interpretive" quotes (3 of them in the article) are all three offered by Leftists: Planned Parenthood, the National Advicates for Pregnant Women (don't be fooled by their name, check their website: a feminist/pro-abortion source) and Dan Savage, a gay male sex-advice columnist in Seattle--- how's that for an expert on Utah legislation and pregnancy issues? First name on their Rolodex, right

And The Independent, while quoting nobody who supports the legislation, and noting that it was "adopted overwhelmingly by both sides of the state legislature," nevertheless says in its headline that it is sparking "outrage" --- from whom? From the three "usual suspects" they quoted, of course.

You just hagve to a a little digging to unearth what's really going on here.

[GovernmentShrinker]

That’s an extremely slippery slope. Drinking more than a couple of cups of coffee a day has been found to significantly increase the miscarriage rate, and it’s hardly “natural” to consume quantities of caffeine or other coffee ingredients that wouldn’t be available in nature. And continuing to go to work or even work around the home, when a doctor has “ordered” bedrest to reduce miscarriage risk, could also be cited as a willful act to cause miscarriage.

[acipher]

Wrong, please read the bill:

(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.