Utah to criminalize Miscarriages

[Kamakazie Sith]

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.

Huh the mentality behind anti-abortion seems to be the preservation of a childs life, and not that women are inferior and are slaves to their husbands.

[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?

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.

The open door allows alot more than just illegal abortions to be prosecuted. Hence why the title. The law might work if we assume all those involved in investigation and prosecution are paragons of morality; but the people involved are humans, with bundles of their own prejudices, agendas, beleifs, and unpleasantness. Since any miscarriage can be designated as violating this due to interpretation of 'reckless', this does in fact move towards all miscarriages illegal. At the very least, I think it will mean some members of the police who have chips on their shoulders will be harassing people who went to medical care for miscarriages.

As for preservation of life in your reply to another, it's astonishingly hard to believe that's the intent given these laws and associated lawmakers stop giving a shit once the child is born.

[Kamakazie Sith]

The open door allows alot more than just illegal abortions to be prosecuted. Hence why the title. The law might work if we assume all those involved in investigation and prosecution are paragons of morality; but the people involved are humans, with bundles of their own prejudices, agendas, beleifs, and unpleasantness. Since any miscarriage can be designated as violating this due to interpretation of 'reckless', this does in fact move towards all miscarriages illegal. At the very least, I think it will mean some members of the police who have chips on their shoulders will be harassing people who went to medical care for miscarriages.

The mental state of reckless is defined.

"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."

To me that doesn't allow any miscarriage to be designated as a violation. For example, I don't know if excessive alcohol consumption could cause a miscarriage, but say a pregnant female had a miscarriage and it was found that she was drinking heavily after learning that she was pregnant...then she could probably be charged.

As for preservation of life in your reply to another, it's astonishingly hard to believe that's the intent given these laws and associated lawmakers stop giving a shit once the child is born.

To these people an unborn childs life is innocent and pure, and is therefore much more valuable than one who is born and is now sinning.

[SirNitram]

I know that, to you, it means nothing unpleasant. What I am saying is that we shouldn't assume good people will be enforcing it. That's all, and it's based on the fact that.. Well, assholes exist as part of the general populace.

As for the whole 'unborn are innocent and pure', I really don't care. We should not write laws to punish the women, even if she isn't at fault(You did read the article, right, where they specifically point out it has nothing to protect a woman whose beaten from being charged?).

[Civil War Man]

Huh the mentality behind anti-abortion seems to be the preservation of a childs life, and not that women are inferior and are slaves to their husbands.

From here:

[Kamakazie Sith]

I know that, to you, it means nothing unpleasant. What I am saying is that we shouldn't assume good people will be enforcing it. That's all, and it's based on the fact that.. Well, assholes exist as part of the general populace.

As for the whole 'unborn are innocent and pure', I really don't care. We should not write laws to punish the women, even if she isn't at fault(You did read the article, right, where they specifically point out it has nothing to protect a woman whose beaten from being charged?).

I understand and agree that it does leave it open for abuse by righteous individuals. I, however, will say that due to the established psychology behind domestic violence victims doing so would likely lead to a very nasty and expensive lawsuit. Based on my experience in Utah law I find it highly unlikely any women would be charged with violating this new law because she was a repeat victim of domestic violence.

I still disagree that it criminalizes miscarriages.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Huh the mentality behind anti-abortion seems to be the preservation of a childs life, and not that women are inferior and are slaves to their husbands.

From here:

Very well. I'm still can't get behind the emotional rants by some people, but I can see that the mindset is similar.

[General Zod]

I still disagree that it criminalizes miscarriages.

The biggest nasty loophole I can see is teenage incest cases.

* 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.

Going by the guidelines for Utah abortions, how is a teenage rape victim supposed to get an abortion if the parent is responsible? This basically gives the state carte-blanche to charge incest victims with homicide if they don't want to carry the pregnancy to term.

[Simon_Jester]

Going by the guidelines for Utah abortions, how is a teenage rape victim supposed to get an abortion if the parent is responsible? This basically gives the state carte-blanche to charge incest victims with homicide if they don't want to carry the pregnancy to term.

Or, for that matter, if the parent isn't responsible but effectively consents? I bet there are still at least a few of the creepy extreme Mormon types in Utah who 'marry' their daughters off to older men at the age of fourteen or so...

[Kamakazie Sith]

The biggest nasty loophole I can see is teenage incest cases.

You're preaching to the choir. I do not agree with this new law, or the existing laws that discourage abortion. My purpose in this thread is to challenge what I think seems inaccurate.

Going by the guidelines for Utah abortions, how is a teenage rape victim supposed to get an abortion if the parent is responsible? This basically gives the state carte-blanche to charge incest victims with homicide if they don't want to carry the pregnancy to term.

I imagine the teen would have to file charges of rape against her father, uncle, etc and then she would be able to proceed.

[General Zod]

I imagine the teen would have to file charges of rape against her father, uncle, etc and then she would be able to proceed.

You mean getting a judicial bypass? There's actually been efforts in Utah to remove that protection under the guise of "reducing" abortions.

[eion]

I imagine the teen would have to file charges of rape against her father, uncle, etc and then she would be able to proceed.

You mean getting a judicial bypass? There's actually been efforts in Utah to remove that protection under the guise of "reducing" abortions.

Not to mention that by the time the case winds it way through court, the baby could be born or be past abortable date, forcing the teen to have the baby anyway.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I imagine the teen would have to file charges of rape against her father, uncle, etc and then she would be able to proceed.

You mean getting a judicial bypass? There's actually been efforts in Utah to remove that protection under the guise of "reducing" abortions.

Doesn't sound like a realistic effort, but I admit I haven't exactly kept current on that. Utah is famous for politicians taking on obviously hopeless quests to gain favor among the religious.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Not to mention that by the time the case winds it way through court, the baby could be born or be past abortable date, forcing the teen to have the baby anyway.

I guess that would depend on if a conviction is necessary. I don't think it is.

[General Zod]

Doesn't sound like a realistic effort, but I admit I haven't exactly kept current on that. Utah is famous for politicians taking on obviously hopeless quests to gain favor among the religious.

Everything about Utah's attitude on abortions considered though, it's a bit hard to take the state on good faith as doing anything but attempting to subvert Roe vs. Wade with this latest proposal.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Everything about Utah's attitude on abortions considered though, it's a bit hard to take the state on good faith as doing anything but attempting to subvert Roe vs. Wade with this latest proposal.

I agree. It disgusts me. Personally, I think it won't really go anywhere because it does fly in the face of Roe vs. Wade. The first time someone gets arrest for this will probably be the last, and hopefully it will result in them living a nice vacation for the rest of their life.

[hunter5]

I do have a question though if someone has an illegal abortion wouldn't they be charged with a crime any way or is that just for doctors?

[General Zod]

I do have a question though if someone has an illegal abortion wouldn't they be charged with a crime any way or is that just for doctors?

Read the article more closely. They're trying to change it so that any "illegal" abortion would be treated as a homicide, not just a crime.

[Master of Ossus]

Why should people be dependent on a DA's sensibility instead of not having retarded laws written?

Because that's how laws are. That's why our court system is one of common law.

Indeed, what prevents a DA with a personal agenda from interperating Reckless as 'Anything which can terminate a pregnancy', regardless of intent?

Uh... the fact that recklessness is defined such that any first-year law student can rattle it off? Suffice it to say, the law requires much more than "anything which can terminate a pregnancy, regardless of intent." Indeed, recklessness is in contrast to intent and negligence. It requires conscious disregard of a known and unacceptable risk. Getting beaten up by your husband and miscarrying as a result is not recklessness.

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?

I don't think that it's wide open to abuse by either police or DA's. I don't think that either of those professions are glorious, but there's a difference between those people having their own agendas and thinking that they'll totally ignore the law as written for a purpose that's unfathomable, and even if they did that's why we have court systems.

We did not scrap rape laws across the country because some douchebag of a DA in Durham decided to prosecute the Duke lacrosse team.

[SirNitram]

I don't think that it's wide open to abuse by either police or DA's. I don't think that either of those professions are glorious, but there's a difference between those people having their own agendas and thinking that they'll totally ignore the law as written for a purpose that's unfathomable, and even if they did that's why we have court systems.

No twisting required. As written, the women is guilty if, in an abusive relationship, she's beaten when pregnant. As written, and as demonstrated by the Iowa case I showed, falling down the stairs can land you in the same trouble. There is no twisting required for this to be abused. You simply have to abide by the letter of the law.

The mere fact the one who sponsor'd this blew off protection for abuse victims as 'Can't stop this, not even for that important thing', tells me everything I need to know. This was not written to be sensible.

[Master of Ossus]

I don't think that it's wide open to abuse by either police or DA's. I don't think that either of those professions are glorious, but there's a difference between those people having their own agendas and thinking that they'll totally ignore the law as written for a purpose that's unfathomable, and even if they did that's why we have court systems.

No twisting required. As written, the women is guilty if, in an abusive relationship, she's beaten when pregnant.

No, she's not. That is not recklessness. Moreover, even if it were, it would be disingenuous to claim that this was representative of a criminalization of miscarriages--only a very small fraction of miscarriages are caused by physical abuse.

As written, and as demonstrated by the Iowa case I showed, falling down the stairs can land you in the same trouble. There is no twisting required for this to be abused. You simply have to abide by the letter of the law.

What action did she take that would have constituted recklessness? Moreover, what part of the Duke lacrosse analogy did you not understand? Just because an abusive prosecutor can theoretically take advantage of the law (which, actually, didn't happen in the IA case), that doesn't affect the law's validity. You cannot protect someone from being maliciously prosecuted by changing the language of a law if the prosecutor is willing to break the law in order to prosecute. That's one reason we have a court system.

The mere fact the one who sponsor'd this blew off protection for abuse victims as 'Can't stop this, not even for that important thing', tells me everything I need to know. This was not written to be sensible.

But it is sensible. The statement that you harp on the sponsor for making could mean any number of things. It could just be deflecting a stall tactic (I don't know how UT's legislature works), and it could be that he doesn't feel it's worth delaying the bill over because there's a more appropriate place to handle it. In any case, you have utterly failed to show that getting beaten up constitutes recklessness--a position that you have made the central pillar of your claim. In what sense did getting beaten up involve conscious disregard of a known and unacceptable risk?

[SirNitram]

Christ, you just have an allergy to reading the original article, don't you? The people who do have active knowledge of Utah's legislature wanting to fine up the language to protect women, but the sponsor didn't stop. The logical response is not 'Oh, well, this probably means nothing, the sponsor must be OK'. Not when one looks at the context, where this is the same legislature is starting to push for warrantless power to seize internet and cell phone data. Link. Or their bizarre plan to stop paying federal taxes and go it alone? I do not see these as signs of a legislature which should just be trusted when it doesn't include protections.

[Alyrium Denryle]

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.

And this is Utah. The DeFacto Mormon Theocracy. It is not like such individuals are not all over the fucking place.

[Kamakazie Sith]

And this is Utah. The DeFacto Mormon Theocracy. It is not like such individuals are not all over the fucking place.

What's your point? Even mormons living in a state with a "DeFacto Mormon Theocracy" have to obey the law...

[Lord of the Abyss]

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.*

Which is one reason why I DON'T think that they actually are concerned with "saving babies". They seldom try to use force when there's a risk to themselves; they show no concern for the children they force to be born, or for prenatal care for that matter; to me, they look like people whose primary motivation is to punish and oppress women. With little if any actual concern for the "baby". As I see it, their only actual concern with children is how to use them as weapons against women.