Utah to criminalize Miscarriages

[SirNitram]

Link

The Utah Senate has joined the House in allowing homicide charges against expectant mothers who arrange illegal abortions.

The bill responds to a case in which a Vernal woman allegedly paid a man $150 to beat her and cause miscarriage but could not be charged. The Senate on Thursday approved HB12 on a vote of 24-4, criminalizing a woman's "intentional, knowing, or reckless act" leading to a pregnancy's illegal termination. It specifies that a woman cannot be prosecuted for arranging a legal abortion.

The measure now goes to Gov. Gary Herbert for final action.

Some Senate Democrats attempted a last-minute amendment to remove the word "reckless" from the list of criminal acts leading to miscarriage. They argued that criminalizing reckless acts leaves open the possibility of prosecutions against domestic violence victims who return to their abusers only to be beaten and lose the child.

"It's part of the cycle of domestic violence," said Sen. Luz Robles, D-Salt Lake City.

"I hope none of you ever have to face that situation," she said after realizing the majority would pass the bill as is, "or have a daughter facing that situation, or a granddaughter."

But the bill's sponsor, Sen. Margaret Dayton, R-Orem, said the bill doesn't target victims at all -- only those who arrange to terminate their pregnancies illegally.

"I know it's well-intentioned," Dayton said of the attempt to lift "reckless acts" from the bill, "but I don't think we want to go down the road of carefully defining the behavior of a woman."

Robles and Sen. Ben McAdams said they had spoken to the bill's original sponsor, Rep. Carl Wimmer, R-Herriman, just before the debate and believed he would support the change on behalf of domestic violence victims. Dayton, though, said Wimmer sent her a text message during the debate asking her to press on.

Wimmer later said he had been open to the Democrats' suggestion, but it had come too late.

"I wasn't about to hold the bill up," he said.

So yea. Be careful, you MIGHT be pregnant.

[Alyeska]

Criminalizing the victim rather than even trying to solve the problem.

[Master of Ossus]

Actually, that strikes me as being reasonable. What state of mind would Democrats have substituted for "reckless?"

[eion]

I think what Alyeska meant was that instead of improving access to abortions and adoption support, they criminalized a desperate woman's act.

Doing the latter without fixing the former is like criminalizing auto accidents without mandating that cars have brakes.

[Simon_Jester]

In this case, the state seems to have nearly outlawed brakes, or at least effectively eliminated them by means other than actual law. I imagine it is not easy to get an abortion in Utah.

[hunter5]

Yeah this is going to be stupid making something illegal that ALREADY IS FUCKING ILLEGAL. This is nothing more than a feel good piece designed to placate a certain voter bloc and nothing more.

[eion]

I imagine it is not easy to get an abortion in Utah.

Good Imagination

Facts circa 2005
-Only 6 providers in the whole state
-93% of Utah counties had no abortion provider.
-18% of women having abortions traveled at least 50 miles, and 5% traveled more than 100 miles

In Utah, the following restrictions on abortion were in effect as of January 2008:
-The parent of a minor must consent and be notified before an abortion is provided.
-A woman must receive state-directed counseling that includes information designed to discourage her from having an abortion and then wait 24 hours before the procedure is provided.
-Public funding is available for abortion only in cases of life endangerment, physical health, rape, incest or fetal abnormality.

[hunter5]

I don't have a problem with the first restriction if a kid can't get a dam earring with out parental consent why should they get a potentially dangerous medical procedure done with out it.

The second one is stupid and unnecessary. It also provides way to many opportunities for "fraud" abortion clinics to set an appointment and just delay until they can't legally do it.

The third I also have no problem with why should the tax payer have to pay for another birth control method when their are already several other safer and less costly methods available that prevent pregnancy in the first place.

I don't like abortion, but a woman should have the right to choose.

[Resinence]

I don't have a problem with the first restriction if a kid can't get a dam earring with out parental consent why should they get a potentially dangerous medical procedure done with out it.

If she just started trying to get an abortion it's doubtful you could call it a "kid" yet. Even still, I'd agree with you on this IF it didn't give an opportunity to assholes who knock up a bunch of women and dissapear a way to stop their victims from getting rid of their "prodigy".

The third I also have no problem with why should the tax payer have to pay for another birth control method when their are already several other safer and less costly methods available that prevent pregnancy in the first place.

How about: It costs less than the cost to society to raise the child if it's abandoned or the cost to the mother in quality of life both emotionally and financially of having to raise and unwanted child - probably messing them up anyway?

The second one, I assume providing more opportunities to force women into raising unwanted children is pretty much the goal.

On the OP: What next? A law stating women must always wear clothing that covers their legs down to the ankles or they can't press charges for rape? Or how about outlawing divorce, or to stop them pressing charges for marital rape! Yeah that one seems just right, I mean women are objects for creating more baby's right? Can't have them escaping.

[hunter5]

If she just started trying to get an abortion it's doubtful you could call it a "kid" yet. Even still, I'd agree with you on this IF it didn't give an opportunity to assholes who knock up a bunch of women and dissapear a way to stop their victims from getting rid of their "prodigy".

I think you miss understand I was referring to minor children getting abortions without parental consent. I was referring the the one getting the abortion not the aborted. I am not sure of your second sentence please explain. I know that many perpetrators of statutory rape use abortions to hide their crimes, but I am not sure of the other way around. Any information would be appreciated.

How about: It costs less than the cost to society to raise the child if it's abandoned or the cost to the mother in quality of life both emotionally and financially of having to raise and unwanted child - probably messing them up anyway?

Isn't that also why health departments give out free condoms and most states have methods of getting free or low cost birth control pills both of these methods costs less than abortions.

[Resinence]

Yeah, I misunderstood, no issue with what your said on the first thing. The second sentence, well, I'm talking about dudes who fuck without birth control and disappear when reality catches up before moving and doing it again. You know, life ruiners.

Isn't that also why health departments give out free condoms and most states have methods of getting free or low cost birth control pills both of these methods costs less than abortions.

Well yeah, you can still get pregnant on birth control though. I'm for state-subsidized abortions as the last thing society needs is more unwanted kids, but I do wonder if there is any research done on whether it encourages abuse or does actually reduce the monetary cost to society - that wasn't done with an agenda I mean.

[eion]

I don't have a problem with the first restriction if a kid can't get a dam earring without parental consent why should they get a potentially dangerous medical procedure done without it.

You can remove your earrings and throw them away after wearing them for a year, not so with a baby. Parental notification is fine, it's not perfect, but it's fine, but I can think of too many instances where the parents would put their own interests ahead of their child's. If the kid's underage, there should be a social worker involved anyway.

The third I also have no problem with why should the tax payer have to pay for another birth control method when there are already several other safer and less costly methods available that prevent pregnancy in the first place.

Which is kind of like finding out all you needed was a $2,000 O-ring after blowing up your $2,000,000,000 Space Shuttle. Condoms can't abort an unwanted pregnancy.

I don't like abortion, but a woman should have the right to choose.

Nor do I, but until there's a 100% adoption rate and everyone gets free health care for life...

Plus I don't have a uterus, so I tend to keep my mouth shut as much as possible on this issue.

[Lord of the Abyss]

I don't have a problem with the first restriction if a kid can't get a dam earring with out parental consent why should they get a potentially dangerous medical procedure done with out it.

Because of the chance that her father raped and impregnated her, for one. Forcing her to beg her rapist for an abortion is disgusting. And telling her to go to a judge to get an exception presumes that the judge won't tell her no and force her to beg anyway; I recall reading of a case years ago where the judge did that and her father/molestor killed her.

For another reason, carrying though with a pregnancy is MORE dangerous than an abortion. And for yet another, why should her parents have the right to force her to bear a child against her will? Parents should no more have that right than they do to rape her.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Isn't the title a bit misleading?

[Kamakazie Sith]

On the OP: What next? A law stating women must always wear clothing that covers their legs down to the ankles or they can't press charges for rape? Or how about outlawing divorce, or to stop them pressing charges for marital rape! Yeah that one seems just right, I mean women are objects for creating more baby's right? Can't have them escaping.

What the fuck are you talking about? Talk about slippery slope of emotional absurdity...

Abortion is legal under certain conditions in Utah. This makes obtaining an illegal abortion a criminal act. I absolutely do not agree with it, but that isn't an excuse to lose your fucking mind.

[Lord of the Abyss]

On the OP: What next? A law stating women must always wear clothing that covers their legs down to the ankles or they can't press charges for rape? Or how about outlawing divorce, or to stop them pressing charges for marital rape! Yeah that one seems just right, I mean women are objects for creating more baby's right? Can't have them escaping.

What the fuck are you talking about? Talk about slippery slope of emotional absurdity...

Abortion is legal under certain conditions in Utah.

But it is hedged about with restrictions to make it as difficult and unpleasant and humiliating as they can, since they can't make it outright illegal. So, yes, the mentality involved is just the same as the one that wants women to be forced into some equivalent of a burkha or for a husband to be allowed to rape his wife if he feels like it.

[hunter5]

I don't have a problem with the first restriction if a kid can't get a dam earring with out parental consent why should they get a potentially dangerous medical procedure done with out it.

Because of the chance that her father raped and impregnated her, for one. Forcing her to beg her rapist for an abortion is disgusting. And telling her to go to a judge to get an exception presumes that the judge won't tell her no and force her to beg anyway; I recall reading of a case years ago where the judge did that and her father/molestor killed her.

For another reason, carrying though with a pregnancy is MORE dangerous than an abortion. And for yet another, why should her parents have the right to force her to bear a child against her will? Parents should no more have that right than they do to rape her.

How often do fathers rape their children? In most of the cases I am familiar with the daughter has no access to the outside world to begin with. Do you have a link to your story would love to learn more. If it is fairly common you may have a point but if it isn't then why make it easier for other rapist to get away with it?

As for pregnancy being more dangerous I guess that depends on when the procedure is done. I would much prefer legal abortions as they are less likely to have complications but there is always a small chance of infertility.

[Vendetta]

How often do fathers rape their children?

Something like 80% of child sex abuse cases involve a close family member, and the abuser is usually either the male parent (biological father or step-father) or uncle.

So, more often than you'd think, given the prevalence of the concept of the abductor-rapist or groomer as the main culprit of child sex abuse in media and news.

[SirNitram]

Isn't the title a bit misleading?

Frankly? No. It's talking about miscarriages and making them illegal. There's not even a clause for domestic abuse; the original sponsor basically said 'Too late, I'm not stopping now to add that in. Good intentions though.'

What is misleading about it?

[SirNitram]

To get a reminder of what feticide laws are like in other states, how's This? Fall down stairs and be unsure of whether you want to give the kid up or keep it, and god forbid, mention this to a medical provider? Police will be called. Why should we assume this is going to work better?

[hunter5]

Well yeah, you can still get pregnant on birth control though. I'm for state-subsidized abortions as the last thing society needs is more unwanted kids, but I do wonder if there is any research done on whether it encourages abuse or does actually reduce the monetary cost to society - that wasn't done with an agenda I mean.

I doubt it both sides are too frimly entrentched in their respective posistions for any sort of third party reaserch to even be possible must less accepted.

[Master of Ossus]

Isn't the title a bit misleading?

Frankly? No. It's talking about miscarriages and making them illegal. There's not even a clause for domestic abuse; the original sponsor basically said 'Too late, I'm not stopping now to add that in. Good intentions though.'

Well, it still requires recklessness to be criminal conduct. Domestic abuse situations don't strike me as reckless--I'm sure they assume that being a victim of domestic abuse won't be interpreted as "reckless," in the state courts. And I ask, again, what mens rea would this guy substitute? Intent? I concede that it can be argued that intent should be required, but surely you see that it would lose many more-or-less uncontroversial applications if it were. After all, recklessness requires genuine knowledge of the consequences and actions in spite of that knowledge.

What is misleading about it?

Miscarriages frequently just happen for reasons that no one can foresee, let alone prevent. The statute doesn't criminalize miscarrieages that occur due to negligence, let alone due to chance.

[SirNitram]

Why should people be dependent on a DA's sensibility instead of not having retarded laws written? Indeed, what prevents a DA with a personal agenda from interperating Reckless as 'Anything which can terminate a pregnancy', regardless of intent? You honestly don't see how this is wide open to abuse by both police and DA's? Or do you just beleive both professions are full of nothing but shining white paragons of virtue?

[Simon_Jester]

But it is hedged about with restrictions to make it as difficult and unpleasant and humiliating as they can, since they can't make it outright illegal. So, yes, the mentality involved is just the same as the one that wants women to be forced into some equivalent of a burkha or for a husband to be allowed to rape his wife if he feels like it.

...Well... closely related. Bear in mind that the people doing this honestly believe that abortion and infanticide are the same thing. Given that, I'm surprised they stop at merely trying to humiliate the women who have them, even given that that's the limit of what federal law allows. You'd think they'd break laws far more often if it were as important as they say it is.*

This is related to the notion of women-as-chattel, men-as-controllers, which is where burqas and... call it the assumption of automatic consent in wives comes from. They're associated historically. But they're not quite the same.

*Yes, I know, on the fringe of the anti-abortion movement you see people who break laws and go full terrorist over this issue. I'm saying I'm surprised that isn't more common.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Isn't the title a bit misleading?

Frankly? No. It's talking about miscarriages and making them illegal. There's not even a clause for domestic abuse; the original sponsor basically said 'Too late, I'm not stopping now to add that in. Good intentions though.'

What is misleading about it?

No, it's talking about making illegal abortions a criminal act. You are correct about it leaving an open door for abuse by righteous individuals in positions of authority, however, it does not make miscarriages in general (which is what your title implies) a criminal act.