Miscarriage illegal?

[Stupidthing0]

A bill passed by the Utah House and Senate this week (http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_14429070) and waiting for the governor’s signature, will make it a crime for a woman to have a miscarriage, and make induced abortion a crime in some instances.
According Lynn M. Paltrow, executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women, what makes Utah’s proposed law unique is that it is specifically designed to be punitive toward pregnant women, not those who might assist or cause an illegal abortion or unintended miscarriage.
The bill passed by legislators amends Utah’s criminal statute to allow the state to charge a woman with criminal homicide for inducing a miscarriage or obtaining an illegal abortion. The basis for the law was a recent case in which a 17-year-old girl, who was seven months pregnant, paid a man $150 to beat her (http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_13651599) in an attempt to cause a miscarriage. Although the girl gave birth to a baby later given up for adoption, she was initially charged with attempted murder. However the charges were dropped because, at the time, under Utah state law a woman could not be prosecuted for attempting to arrange an abortion, lawful or unlawful.
The bill passed by the Utah legislature would change that. While the bill does not affect legally obtained abortions, it criminalizes any actions taken by women to induce a miscarriage or abortion outside of a doctor’s care, with penalties including up to life in prison.
“What is really radical and different about this statute is that all of the other states’ feticide laws are directed to third party attackers,” Paltrow explained. “[Other states' feticide laws] were passed in response to a pregnant woman who has been beaten up by a husband or boyfriend. Utah’s law is directed to the woman herself and that’s what makes it different and dangerous.”
In addition to criminalizing an intentional attempt to induce a miscarriage or abortion, the bill also creates a standard that could make women legally responsible for miscarriages caused by “reckless” behavior.
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.
“This creates a law that makes any pregnant woman who has a miscarriage potentially criminally liable for murder,” says Missy Bird, executive director of Planned Parenthood Action Fund of Utah. Bird says there are no exemptions in the bill for victims of domestic violence or for those who are substance abusers. The standard is so broad, Bird says, “there nothing in the bill to exempt a woman for not wearing her seatbelt who got into a car accident.”
Such a standard could even make falling down stairs a prosecutable event, such as the recent case in Iowa (http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/02/15/its-illegal-37-states-for-a-pregnant-woman-fall-down-stairs) where a pregnant woman who fell down the stairs at her home was arrested under the suspicion she was trying to terminate her pregnancy.




so.. umm wtf? I think this was basicly started after a girl paid a guy to punch her in the stomach to get rid of her baby. (it failed, so therefore not an abortion? and she didn't miscarriage?)

anyway... WTF....

[Charlie]

So... even by any small, natural accident, you're a baby killer by law, if it causes a miscarriage? Or whatever else that isn't intentional? Fuck this bill. Someone should punch their governor, if he signs that. I would.

[Seegtease]

Really, since these people don't consider it to be a human at almost any point anyways, I don't see why they care if you "kill" your baby by being punched in the stomach. How can they charge for homicide for what they don't believe to be a human?

[Stupidthing0]

i know the woman than paid the guy was like 7 mths pregnant which IS in the 'fetus' stage and not just embryo... but still like wtf. Soo if I get in a car accident and i'm not wearing a seat belt .. and i have a miscarriage.. i'm totally a murderer! alright!!! (note to self never move to utah if going to have baby)

[SpaceProg]

I'm having a horrible comic flashback concerning Zelda, Link, and Ganon getting Zelda "Teen Pregnant".

[Killer_Man_]

http://static.funnyjunk.com/pictures/falcon_punch3.jpg

Actually, I don't blame them. What basically means is that if you plan on having a miscarriage, you must go and have an abortion.

Zeit, and don't think what you said about them thinking a fetus isn't a human. Because, by law, if you were to shoot and kill a mother to be. If she is so far in her term, you'll get a double homicide charge. One for the mother and one for the child.

Silly, isn't it?

This is just to prevent those people from abusing things. Perhaps I am naive at the situation but I think that if you are willing enough to end a baby's life. You should end it in the hospital and not paying some guy to punch your stomach. Mostly because if the baby does still comes. It might have defects or even die. In which case, by law, it's homicide. Much like I mentioned about if you kill a mother to be, in Wisconsin it counts as a double homicide depending on how far the mother was in her term.

If it's a miscarriage and there was nothing that you could do, to bring that child to term. I don't see them going after you cause of it.

[Seegtease]

Zeit, and don't think what you said about them thinking a fetus isn't a human. Because, by law, if you were to shoot and kill a mother to be. If she is so far in her term, you'll get a double homicide charge. One for the mother and one for the child.

Silly, isn't it?

It's only silly if their standard for homicide is consistent with their definition of human, that is, whatever is past the point of a legal abortion.

What I'm saying is if they are still in the period in which an abortion could be obtained legally when they try to miscarry, then they have no grounds for homicide.

I know that wasn't the case with the specific scenario, but unless I'm misreading (which I may well be), the law would include any miscarriage at any time.

[Killer_Man_]

Basically from what the bill says, that if you intentionally or knowingly have an -illegal- abortion. That you will be prosecuted. Such as those who use coat hangers, people who punch them and etc.

And yes, Zeit, I know that there is inconsistency on what a 'human is' but that is just how it is.

[Bloodcinder]

Soo if I get in a car accident and i'm not wearing a seat belt .. and i have a miscarriage.. i'm totally a murderer! alright!!!

Basically from what the bill says, that if you intentionally or knowingly have an -illegal- abortion. That you will be prosecuted.

No. It says that you can be prosecuted for intended miscarriage. Which brings up two points.

1) The state has to actually bring charges. In order to bring charges, they would need to be able to justify that there was an intent to miscarry in order for a judge to approve.

2) Since it is a felony, the charged individual would have to face a jury, and if they were to find a lack of evidence for intent to miscarry, they'd likely not convict.

So, to the first quote, no, because a car accident inducing miscarriage is not with intent, whereas hiring somebody to punch you until you miscarry is.

Regarding the second quote, partially no, because the state is not required to press charges unless they believe the case can be won in the state's favor.

Basically, this does one thing: give the Utah government authority to prosecute people who seek to engage in an act that is already illegal there.

[Killer_Man_]

Basically, this does one thing: give the Utah government authority to prosecute people who seek to engage in an act that is already illegal there.

It wasn't illegal though, because the 17 year old got off from her charges cause it wasn't illegal for her to seek 'illegal' abortions.

[chefTENGU]

It wasn't illegal though, because the 17 year old got off from her charges cause it wasn't illegal for her to seek 'illegal' abortions.
It wasn't illegal for her to do something illegal?

[Arainach]

All I can say is about time. At some point, someone has to raise the question. You want to confuse someone who's anti-choice? Ask them how long the mother should go to jail if she has an abortion. If they're able to even come up with any sort of answer instead of dodging the question, they're smarter than 99% of anti-choice activists. Props to Utah for at least being logically consistent in their opposition to abortion.

[Seegtease]

Since I don't think I mentioned it, I do think that it's good to prosecute for intentionally miscarriages, at any time in the pregnancy (since I believe it to always be homicide, but that's another discussion).

[Stupidthing0]

all good points! but for the record... who the hell would punch a pregnant woman anyway? I mean, he was someone hired not even the boyfriend(unless I misread that)

but in any event I don't think having an abortion to should be illegal (and you CAN get abortions well into the last few weeks of labor which is pretty wrong, but most places say 20 weeks *4 mths in pregnant time* is the max and isn't an abortion technically an intended miscarriage? i mean, you have to know your pregnant to have an abortion....

but in any event... the homicide thing makes sense bc as early mentioned if you kill a pregnant woman, your probably going to get double homicide.

[Seegtease]

the homicide thing makes sense bc as early mentioned if you kill a pregnant woman, your probably going to get double homicide.

Which is ridiculously silly.

So long as an abortion is legal, I don't see how the law could possibly interpret killing a pregnant woman to be double homicide without considering an abortion to be homicide.

[Killer_Man_]

Which is ridiculously silly.

So long as an abortion is legal, I don't see how the law could possibly interpret killing a pregnant woman to be double homicide without considering an abortion to be homicide.

Because, it's just how it is. In Wisconsin, it's double homicide because you killed a mother. I think it has to be about 7 months or so.

I think it's mostly because if the Mother was going to give birth, you are basically killing two people.

It wasn't illegal for her to do something illegal?

Utah law states that a woman cannot be held criminally liable for seeking to obtain an abortion for herself.

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_13651599

[Seegtease]

I think it's mostly because if the Mother was going to give birth, you are basically killing two people.

So as long as you want it, it's a human?

[SpaceProg]

When it becomes either self-aware or able to feel pain I consider it a developing human. That's just my take on it.

I don't agree with inflicting pain or needless death on anything that can't defend itself.

Hey, I'm not just that way with humans, I'm that way with the rest of the animal kingdom too.


*Sees the infamous Zelda/Link pic again* *Shudders*

[Killer_Man_]

So as long as you want it, it's a human?

That's the way it seems in Wisconsin's law. If it's near 6-9 months or so. It's considered human(Though I do believe they use the term fetus) and if you kill a mother to be, it's double homicide. Mostly because I assume they changed it because of either a few mothers being killed in a past, someone shot some mother and wanted justice for her baby(Mother survived, the kid didn't) but really whatever the reason. By law, if they are by a certain month, they assume that they were going to carry to term and that is how Wisconsin's law is.

[Bloodcinder]

I am having trouble finding words to explain to KM. Somebody else do it. Chef?

[Killer_Man_]

I am having trouble finding words to explain to KM. Somebody else do it. Chef?

You don't have to explain anything, I already know what was said. I was trying to explain how Wisconsin law handles it when a mother is murdered. How can it be murder if the fetus isn't declared a human from conception? Who knows. Either way, the law is the law and I was trying to explain why it was. I am just trying to say that it could have been anther human in the world but was cut short due to being murdered.

http://www.nrlc.org/Whatsnew/sthomicidelaws.htm

http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=14386


Some states it's manslaughter while some it's a felony. Some are even calling it feticide.

I'm only quoting what the law books say.

[Stupidthing0]

kay so some states killing pregnant woman is double murder bc she's having a babay. chances are if she's 7 or more months pregnant she's PROBABLY going to have the kid? ... then again this whole thing started bc a 7mth pregnant woman paid a guy to beat her so she would have a miscarriage.

I think its safe to say that its wrong? abortions and miscarriages are different things medically. and I don't think that a self induced 'miscarriage' should be considered a miscarriage, i think t should be a self induced abortion bc your knowingly killing the fetus/embryo/human/whateverelse you feel comfortable with inside of you. Normally, a miscarriage happens when a mother doesn't know she's pregnant or something happens bad during pregnancy. SO I think the bill is wrong in saying it's illegal to have a self induced miscarriage. it should be self induced abortion. Though... if you want an abortion you should deff be able to have one. by a doctor. not getting beat.

[chefTENGU]

Abortion law is chronically silly because every sane lawmaker refuses to touch it with a 50ft. pole.

Even the fucking Supreme Court didn't decide anything. The outcome of Roe v. Wade was simply "Umm... we can't figure this out, so we'll let the states decide for themselves."

Which is why we end up with laws that contradict each other in spirit. "You are free to get an abortion... until a certain point. Why? DON'T ASK." This miscarriage law is just another symptom of this overarching theme of law stupidity.

[Arainach]

The outcome of Roe v. Wade was simply "Umm... we can't figure this out, so we'll let the states decide for themselves."That's....the exact opposite of what the decision said. If they let the states decide it, it'd be illegal in a pile of states.

[Tiger]

I think its safe to say that its wrong? abortions and miscarriages are different things medically. and I don't think that a self induced 'miscarriage' should be considered a miscarriage, i think t should be a self induced abortion bc your knowingly killing the fetus/embryo/human/whateverelse you feel comfortable with inside of you. Normally, a miscarriage happens when a mother doesn't know she's pregnant or something happens bad during pregnancy. SO I think the bill is wrong in saying it's illegal to have a self induced miscarriage. it should be self induced abortion. Though... if you want an abortion you should deff be able to have one. by a doctor. not getting beat.


a·bor·tion

  http://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/g/d/speaker.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/A00/A0030500) /əˈbɔrhttp://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngʃən/ http://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html) Show Spelled[uh-bawr-shuhhttp://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngn] http://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.html) Show IPA
–noun1.Also called voluntary abortion. the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.

2.any of various surgical methods for terminating a pregnancy, esp. during the first six months.

3.Also called spontaneous abortion. miscarriage (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/miscarriage) (def. 1).

mis·car·riage

  http://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/g/d/speaker.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/M04/M0478100) /mɪsˈkærhttp://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngɪdʒ; for 1 also ˈmɪsˌkærhttp://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngɪdʒ/ http://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html) Show Spelled[mis-kar-ij; for 1 also mis-kar-ij] http://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.html) Show IPA
–noun1.the expulsion of a fetus before it is viable, esp. between the third and seventh months of pregnancy; spontaneous abortion. Compare abortion (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abortion) (def. 1).






they are the same thing just one word is more taboo than the other

[chefTENGU]

That's....the exact opposite of what the decision said. If they let the states decide it, it'd be illegal in a pile of states.
I should have been more clear.

With regards to the question "does a fetus deserve recognition as a human being, deserving of all the rights a human being is entitled to?" the Supreme Court took a pass, avoiding the knot of contention at the heart of the entire debate completely.

Instead, they decided that regardless of whatever moral or ethical concerns were involved, it was far more beneficial to allow women access to legal, safe, and cheap abortions, instead of criminalizing them.

40 years later, we're no closer to finding an answer to the question that continues to fuel the debate, and we get all this quasi-abortion ban legislation as a result.

they are the same thing just one word is more taboo than the other
In a historical context, I think that "abortion" (as it's been practiced since antiquity) refers to a human-induced miscarriage, something someone sets out to do; there have been laws regarding the proper practice of it since laws have existed.

"Miscarriage" implies an unintentional loss of a pregnancy. I think the language of the law we're talking about was chosen to show that what this girl did is something that doesn't involve a surgical procedure (so as not to confuse us modern day folk), but I doubt her method is all that different from how abortions were performed in ancient Greece and Rome.

[Arainach]

With regards to the question "does a fetus deserve recognition as a human being, deserving of all the rights a human being is entitled to?" the Supreme Court took a pass, avoiding the knot of contention at the heart of the entire debate completely.In Section IX (http://supreme.justia.com/us/410/113/case.html#156) of the decision, the court said the following:A. The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. [Footnote 51] On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument [Footnote 52] that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. ... None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application. All this, together with our observation, supra, that, throughout the major portion of the 19th century, prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn. [Footnote 55] This is in accord with the results reached in those few cases where the issue has been squarely presented.

Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.Doesn't really sound like punting to me. They clearly established that Fetuses have no constitutional rights. They punted on the definition of when "life" begins, but on the issue of if fetuses have rights, they were quite clear.

[Stupidthing0]

they are still considered different medically... not by definition.

forgot to quote that didn't see the 2nd page.

[chefTENGU]

They clearly established that Fetuses have no constitutional rights. They punted on the definition of when "life" begins, but on the issue of if fetuses have rights, they were quite clear.
I dunno, it seems kind of vague to me. Summation:

First paragraph: "If a fetus is indeed a person, it is protected under the 14th amendment."

Second paragraph: "Except the Constitution doesn't define what 'person' means, but we're pretty sure they weren't talking about the unborn when they wrote the 14th amendment 100 years ago."

Third paragraph: "The State may argue that life begins at conception, and therefore, the State has an obligation to protect that life. However, since no one else seems to be able to define when life begins, we're not going to even try here. Maybe later. Go ask your mother."

[Seegtease]

Second paragraph: "Except the Constitution doesn't define what 'person' means, but we're pretty sure they weren't talking about the unborn when they wrote the 14th amendment 100 years ago."

Heh, and they're probably right. They weren't going to word it in such a way as to include the unborn, because the fact that their laws would be looked at in this context never even occurred to them.

If our founding fathers had known what would happen hundreds of years later, I guarantee you they would have been very specific in their wording. The courts these days are always looking at things in a "well they didn't say this" kind of way rather than be sensible and realize that "duh, of course they didn't say that because it didn't occur to them. But from what we know about the founding fathers (quite a lot), we can tell they wouldn't have wanted things to be this way."

We need to spend more time looking at the spirit of the law rather than the phrasing of the law.

[Stupidthing0]

people are always gonna argue the law until they need it on their side.... *sigh* gotta love it.

[SpaceProg]

Which is why I go to bed and have dreams about being back at school with Bill O'Rielly as my teacher, for some fucked-up reason.

[chefTENGU]

If our founding fathers had known what would happen hundreds of years later, I guarantee you they would have been very specific in their wording. The courts these days are always looking at things in a "well they didn't say this" kind of way rather than be sensible and realize that "duh, of course they didn't say that because it didn't occur to them. But from what we know about the founding fathers (quite a lot), we can tell they wouldn't have wanted things to be this way."
That debate (the Constitution doesn't say anything about letting us X!/the Constitution doesn't say we can't X!) has been raging since there's been a Constitution to refer to.

At every point in history where the Federal government has wanted to do something it hasn't done before, it's met resistance from states' rights advocates who argue "But the Constitution doesn't say the Feds can poke their ass into our business!"