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

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?

Once again, the situation is directly analogous to other forms of suspicious death: suicide by cold-medicine? Homicide of (say a child or a spouse) by cold medicine? Not likely.

And if it's unlikely, it's very probably a prosecutor will not touch the case.

And even if such a thing were, as is unlikely, brought to court (going far out on a limb, say a woman were bragging in a bar that she would self-abort, and then miscarried after taking several dozen oh, I don't know, Zicams?) a jury would be unlikely to convict unless there were someone zealous enough to identify and bring in the people at the bar, the doctor who confirmed the pregnancy to begin with, the doctor who said, "Yup, 37 Zicams would do this," etc.)

Same problem with a dependent elder who, say, dies with 37 Zicams in their system. Was it the caregiver? Or not? Unless the caregiver said in public that "Great-grandmama is going to die, and pronto, because Zicam is all you need"---Who would know?

Absent very clear indicators of criminal abuse or criminal neglect, there would be no prosecution.

And the existence of hypothetical borderline cases does not constitute an argument against legislation designed to protect babies, great-grandmamas, and other vulnerable parties.

Regardless of the slant of the article, there is definitely some potential here for abuse. Does this mean police will be investigating every miscarriage in UT?

"There is definitely potential here for abuse. Does this mean the police will be investigating every child's death, to be sure they were accidental and not purposeful"

My point being that any law which makes it illegal to kill someone requires that deaths be investigated, to rule out deliberate acts of murder. If your child drowns in a pool, the police will investigate to make sure it was an accident. If a baby stops breathing in the middle of the night, they will investigate to make sure you didn't suffocate the child, or shake the child.

So, how do you tell the difference between a woman who is assaulted and loses her baby, and a woman who convinces another person to assault her to kill her baby? You investigate.

And how do you tell if an 8-month-old fetus miscarriage is caused by a deliberate act, or is simply an accident? You would have to investigate. I presume a doctor or coronor would be the first gatekeeper.

The interesting question to me is what obligation a woman has to take a certain degree of care when pregnant. I can't tell whether the law requires any special care by the mother, other than to not deliberately take an action that would be expected to result in the death of the child.

But I say if you are acting with reckless disregard for a fetus, you probably should face trial. It’s a life dammit.

It is often true that people who profess to be strongly pro-life still refuse to treat the death of a fetus with the same level of concern as the death of a two-year-old. When we see a mother treating her infant child recklessly, as with Brittney Spears (or a father like Michael Jackson), we are outraged, and expect the law to take action.

And yes, those who have just suffered an accidental death will be inconvenienced by these investigations, and hurt by them, but that is the price we pay for keeping people from killing their children.

So, how do you tell the difference between a woman who is assaulted and loses her baby, and a woman who convinces another person to assault her to kill her baby? You investigate.

You want to investigate every miscarriage as if it were a crime because one stupid chick did something stupid? Talk about an emotionally driven overreaction. You should have to pay for all of them out of your pocket.

And yes, those who have just suffered an accidental death will be inconvenienced by these investigations, and hurt by them, but that is the price we pay for keeping people from killing their children.

So, how do you tell the difference between a woman who is assaulted and loses her baby, and a woman who convinces another person to assault her to kill her baby? You investigate.

So you are saying you want to investigate every miscarriage as a possible criminal act? Since 1 of 4 pregnancies (about 900,000 a year in the US) end in miscarriage, I hope you are paying for this, because I think it is crazy to form this whole new bureaucracy that will costs billions and billions of dollars because of one stupid chick.

But that is our generation. Government is the solution to all problems, even if there is no problem.

“Government is the solution to all problems, even if there is no problem.”

I presume the deaths of preborns would be investigated about like the deaths of the post-born are. A lot more post-born people die every year than pre-born, and we manage to investigate the suspicious deaths without overly taxing our criminal justice system.

From the statements of others, it sounds like investigations would be triggered by a some obvious indication of wrong-doing, not simply by the death of a pre-born.

But that is our generation. Government is the solution to all problems, even if there is no problem.

The bill itself.

What is wrong here, people? Why shouldn't criminal homicide apply to an unborn child?

You are worried about the gray areas? How about these: (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.

So the fact that there are a million children killed every year is not a problem? I would rather they spent money closing down the clinics and going after the doctors, than whatever they spend money on. We need these kids and killing them is going to be the downfall of American society.

I am not sure if we are talking about the same thing. There are about 900,000 miscarriages in this country every year. About 75% occur in the first trimester. Are you saying these babies are being killed? I think it is more likely the result of natural forces at work.

From the statements of others, it sounds like investigations would be triggered by a some obvious indication of wrong-doing, not simply by the death of a pre-born.

But that is not what the law says. I want it in writing, because I do not trust the best intentions of our government at all. Believe me, if this law passes, they will want to use it. And unless they run across another stupid chick like this one, they are going to have to find someone else to try it out on, like a mother who drank a glass of wine during her pregnancy or went skiing, etc.

Very little good can come from this law and lots of bad can. I mean really, how often does some stupid chick in her third trimester try something like this? She is the first I ever heard doing it and maybe the last.

Why do you think this law is any more open than any other law about murder? Do you think the language talking about not being allowed to kill people is written to specifically preclude investigations of every death?

As I said before. If we really want to treat the pre-born as people, just the same as the after-born, we can’t also expect that the death of the pre-born should be investigated any less than the death of the already born, simply because there are more preborn deaths.

“Actions don’t become different retroactively because of how the person who did them felt at the time.”

“Felt”, I would agree with. However, the truth of “non compos mentis” insanity, is that there is little or no doubt even by a layman that someone is “not in command of their faculties”. And this *is* satisfactory to most people that during these times they have little or no control over themselves, so should not be held entirely to blame for their actions.

I could cite several very dramatic examples, such as advanced pernicious anemia, caused by the inability to absorb Vitamin B12. There are many cases where a frothing, incoherent maniac in a straight jacket, and tied to a bed, when given an injection of B12 would, within one minute, return to complete clarity, sanity, along with some confusion as to where they were, and why?

But in the final analysis, whether a person is permanently or just temporarily insane, they need professional evaluation to determine if there is any degree of mitigation for their actions in that mental state.

That’s an interesting case, first of all because it is periodic, that is, if a woman claims to have been temporarily insane because of PMS, then he blood hormone and neurotransmitter levels can be measured the following month. Eventually, this may become the legal standard, for this little used excuse.

To be adjudged temporarily insane, by a clinical standard, hormones and neurochemicals have to be severely off the norm, so much so that little subjectivity would be involved.

In the case of PMS, it is known to specifically affect the brain chemical serotonin.

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

Most serotonin is used in the gut, but that part in the CNS has various functions, including the regulation of mood, appetite, sleep, muscle contraction, and some cognitive functions including memory and learning.

If your serotonin levels are way off, you know it.

However, this is very different from “The Twinkie Defense”, in which *subjectively* courts have determined temporary insanity, which I agree is nonsense, except perhaps under such severe emotional stress that anyone would be expected to lose their sense, such as seeing a family member at extreme risk.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.