Why The Beehive State Hates Women

Status
Not open for further replies.
I

Iaculus

... Goddamn it, Utah.

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?

Abortion remains deeply contentious in the United States, where, with some restrictions, it has been legal under the terms of the landmark Roe v Wade ruling by the Supreme Court of 1973. The issue returned to the front pages last month when Scott Roeder was tried and convicted for the murder in Kansas last August of one of the few doctors legally providing late-term abortions in the country.

The reaction to Utah's new initiative has verged in most quarters on disbelief, however. \"For all these years the anti-choice movement has said 'we want to outlaw abortion, not put women in jail', but what this law says is 'no, we really want to put women in jail',\" Lynn Paltrow, executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women, wrote in a blog.

Similarly astonished is the syndicated columnist Dan Savage. \"Where will this insanity end?\" he wrote. \"If every miscarriage is a potential homicide, how does Utah avoid launching a criminal investigation every time a woman has a miscarriage? And how is Utah supposed to know when a pregnant woman has had a miscarriage? You're going to have to create some sort of pregnancy registry to keep track of all those foetuses. Perhaps you could start issuing 'conception certificates' to women who get pregnant. And then, if there isn't a baby within nine months of the issuance of a conception certificate, the woman could be hauled in for questioning.\"

Utah is used to criticism from some of its more liberal neighbours for its socially conservative ways that range from allowing concealed guns on its state university campus to strict limits on alcohol sales. It has not gone unnoticed that consideration of the bill, with the potentially high costs it would entail, has coincided with a debate on cancelling the last year of school for Utah children to help to save the state money.
Bolded for particular WTF-ery, because what could be more reasonable than creating a law outlawing possibly-maybe-deliberate miscarriages in order to punish a clearly-disturbed teenager so desperate that she hired someone to beat her up in order to get rid of her pregnancy?

But wait, there's more:

In certain circumstances it would become aggravated murder (which carries the fucking death penalty):
- if it occurs while the woman is in jail (note that incarcerated women can't get legal abortions in Utah).
- if the woman is pregnant with twins.
- if in an instance where the woman has previously been convicted of rape, murder, kidnapping, or criminal homicide.

... Please tell me the Supreme Court's going to give this the smackdown it deserves.
 
"It has not gone unnoticed that consideration of the bill, with the potentially high costs it would entail, has coincided with a debate on cancelling the last year of school for Utah children to help to save the state money."

What the hell?
 
This is unbelivable. I'm sure it's traumatic enough to have a miscarriage in the first place, but then to have possible jail time (or execution!:shocked:) added on top of it is just sickening. Way to go Utah.
 
C

Chazwozel

Have you guys read the article? The chick paid a guy to beat the fuck out of her so she could miscarry. The entire bill revolves around a way to prosecute idiots who attempt this; not towards women who suffer a natural miscarriage.

All this, of course, is a result of desperate people making rash decisions due to not having access to medical facilities for abortions.
 
Yes, I did read the article. Their definition of "reckless" is too vague. If the bill said "Chicks that pay a guy to beat the fuck out of them so they miscarry will be charged" it might be different. As it stands, in the article, they mention drinking wine, walking on icy ground, or skiing. They also bring up the possibility of women in abusive relationships being charged if they miscarry from being beaten.
 
Yes, I did read the article. Their definition of "reckless" is too vague. If the bill said "Chicks that pay a guy to beat the fuck out of them so they miscarry will be charged" it might be different. As it stands, in the article, they mention drinking wine, walking on icy ground, or skiing. They also bring up the possibility of women in abusive relationships being charged if they miscarry from being beaten.
Unfortunately they can't make the law specific because there are numerous ways to have a miscarriage without paying somebody to beat them up. They could get a bottle of vodka and drink the hell out of the fetus, "slip" and fall down the stairs and probably another dozen activies that could cause miscarriages.

But the word "reckless" has no business in this bill. Legislators should say "intentionally" causing the miscarriage is illegal is can include any number of activities that the pregnant woman might not have considered harmful to the baby.

But the Law needs to be passed because if there women don't miscarry their children can have a wide range of disabilities so they aren't deciding what to do with their own bodies but actively harming somebody else.
 
I

Iaculus

Yes, I did read the article. Their definition of "reckless" is too vague. If the bill said "Chicks that pay a guy to beat the fuck out of them so they miscarry will be charged" it might be different. As it stands, in the article, they mention drinking wine, walking on icy ground, or skiing. They also bring up the possibility of women in abusive relationships being charged if they miscarry from being beaten.
Unfortunately they can't make the law specific because there are numerous ways to have a miscarriage without paying somebody to beat them up. They could get a bottle of vodka and drink the hell out of the fetus, "slip" and fall down the stairs and probably another dozen activies that could cause miscarriages.

But the word "reckless" has no business in this bill. Legislators should say "intentionally" causing the miscarriage is illegal is can include any number of activities that the pregnant woman might not have considered harmful to the baby.

But the Law needs to be passed because if there women don't miscarry their children can have a wide range of disabilities so they aren't deciding what to do with their own bodies but actively harming somebody else.[/QUOTE]

By placing murder charges on things that could have somehow-maybe harmed the baby?

Oh, and you might have missed this bit - legal abortions also get murder charges unless the following criteria are met:

------(1) As used in this section, "viable" means that the unborn child has reached a stage of
275-------fetal development when the unborn child is potentially able to live outside the womb, as
276-------determined by the attending physician to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.
277--(2) An abortion may be performed in this state only by a physician
281--(3) An abortion may be performed in this state only under the following
282------circumstances:
283-----(a) the unborn child is not viable; or
284-----(b) the unborn child is viable, if:
285--------(i) the abortion is necessary to avert:
286-----------(A) the death of the woman on whom the abortion is performed; or
287-----------(B) a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily
288---------------function of the woman on whom the abortion is performed;
289--------(ii) two physicians who practice maternal fetal medicine concur, in writing, in the
290------------patient's medical record that the fetus has a defect that is uniformly diagnosable
291------------and uniformly lethal; or
292--------(iii)(A) the woman is pregnant as a result of:
293---------------(I) rape, as described in Section 76-5-402 ;
294---------------(II) rape of a child, as described in Section 76-5-402.1 ; or
295---------------(III) incest, as described in Subsection 76-5-406 (10) or Section 76-7-102 ; and
296-------------(B) before the abortion is performed, the physician who performs the abortion:
297----------------(I) verifies that the incident described in Subsection (3)(b)(iii)(A) has been
298--------------------reported to law enforcement; and
299----------------(II) complies with the requirements of Section 62A-4a-403 .
 
By placing murder charges on things that could have somehow-maybe harmed the baby?
They did intentionally cause a miscarriage. They are well past somehow-maybe.

Oh, and you might have missed this bit - legal abortions also get murder charges unless the following criteria are met:

------(1) As used in this section, "viable" means that the unborn child has reached a stage of
275-------fetal development when the unborn child is potentially able to live outside the womb, as
276-------determined by the attending physician to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.
277--(2) An abortion may be performed in this state only by a physician
281--(3) An abortion may be performed in this state only under the following
282------circumstances:
283-----(a) the unborn child is not viable; or
284-----(b) the unborn child is viable, if:
285--------(i) the abortion is necessary to avert:
286-----------(A) the death of the woman on whom the abortion is performed; or
287-----------(B) a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily
288---------------function of the woman on whom the abortion is performed;
289--------(ii) two physicians who practice maternal fetal medicine concur, in writing, in the
290------------patient's medical record that the fetus has a defect that is uniformly diagnosable
291------------and uniformly lethal; or
292--------(iii)(A) the woman is pregnant as a result of:
293---------------(I) rape, as described in Section 76-5-402 ;
294---------------(II) rape of a child, as described in Section 76-5-402.1 ; or
295---------------(III) incest, as described in Subsection 76-5-406 (10) or Section 76-7-102 ; and
296-------------(B) before the abortion is performed, the physician who performs the abortion:
297----------------(I) verifies that the incident described in Subsection (3)(b)(iii)(A) has been
298--------------------reported to law enforcement; and
299----------------(II) complies with the requirements of Section 62A-4a-403 .
So the laws governing abortions are strict. But the answer to that is an abortion vacation to a neighboring state not paying some punk to punch you in the stomach as hard as he can.

Sure they've put women into a hard place but there is no reason to allow women to pursue intentional miscarriages.
 
as in drinking wine or skiing?

what the fuck is wrong with you.

they're thinking about cutting school to implement this law. They're so much overboard with their reaction, they have to believe it's 1890 again.
 
I

Iaculus

By placing murder charges on things that could have somehow-maybe harmed the baby?
They did intentionally cause a miscarriage. They are well past somehow-maybe.

Oh, and you might have missed this bit - legal abortions also get murder charges unless the following criteria are met:

------(1) As used in this section, "viable" means that the unborn child has reached a stage of
275-------fetal development when the unborn child is potentially able to live outside the womb, as
276-------determined by the attending physician to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.
277--(2) An abortion may be performed in this state only by a physician
281--(3) An abortion may be performed in this state only under the following
282------circumstances:
283-----(a) the unborn child is not viable; or
284-----(b) the unborn child is viable, if:
285--------(i) the abortion is necessary to avert:
286-----------(A) the death of the woman on whom the abortion is performed; or
287-----------(B) a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily
288---------------function of the woman on whom the abortion is performed;
289--------(ii) two physicians who practice maternal fetal medicine concur, in writing, in the
290------------patient's medical record that the fetus has a defect that is uniformly diagnosable
291------------and uniformly lethal; or
292--------(iii)(A) the woman is pregnant as a result of:
293---------------(I) rape, as described in Section 76-5-402 ;
294---------------(II) rape of a child, as described in Section 76-5-402.1 ; or
295---------------(III) incest, as described in Subsection 76-5-406 (10) or Section 76-7-102 ; and
296-------------(B) before the abortion is performed, the physician who performs the abortion:
297----------------(I) verifies that the incident described in Subsection (3)(b)(iii)(A) has been
298--------------------reported to law enforcement; and
299----------------(II) complies with the requirements of Section 62A-4a-403 .
So the laws governing abortions are strict. But the answer to that is an abortion vacation to a neighboring state not paying some punk to punch you in the stomach as hard as he can.

Sure they've put women into a hard place but there is no reason to allow women to pursue intentional miscarriages.[/QUOTE]

And you don't think the one is related to the other? I mean, it certainly seems that a better means of preventing women from paying to get the crap beaten out of them as an impromptu method of abortion would be to actually allow them other, feasible options.

Trying to get your baby punched out of you when you're seven months pregnant isn't an act of malice, it's an act of desperation.
 
no this is about "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"

Intentional, ok prosecute away. knowing, yeaaaaah i'm not too convinced but ok. Reckless? why don't they just make it mandatory for women in Utah to just stay in bed for 9 months.
 

Cajungal

Staff member
I read it, Chaz, and that was wrong. But I was under the impression that any woman who had a miscarriage because of an accident would be under suspicion. The blame would be on her for doing something that someone else might deem too dangerous.

Some say this could include drinking one glass of wine too many, walking on an icy pavement or skiing.
I won't comment on the wine thing... I've heard that one small glass a week isn't the end of the world, but I've also heard that no amount is ok. But isn't that kind of scary?
 
I

Iaculus

I read it, Chaz, and that was wrong. But I was under the impression that any woman who had a miscarriage because of an accident would be under suspicion. The blame would be on her for doing something that someone else might deem too dangerous.

Some say this could include drinking one glass of wine too many, walking on an icy pavement or skiing.
I won't comment on the wine thing... I've heard that one small glass a week isn't the end of the world, but I've also heard that no amount is ok. But isn't that kind of scary?
The consensus seems to be that drinking wine is bad news... but only when the woman hasn't got to the 'visibly pregnant' stage.
 

Cajungal

Staff member
^That's what I figure, too. If I were pregnant, I wouldn't risk it. But someone like walking on ground that might be slippery?... who gets to decide that a woman who slips and falls is at fault for endangering herself?
 
And you don't think the one is related to the other? I mean, it certainly seems that a better means of preventing women from paying to get the crap beaten out of them as an impromptu method of abortion would be to actually allow them other, feasible options.

Trying to get your baby punched out of you when you're seven months pregnant isn't an act of malice, it's an act of desperation.
Where did I say that I didn't think one was related to the other? What I said was that one doesn't justify the other. I can understand the desperation and the poor judgment involved in throwing yourself down the stairs because you by law can't have an abortion however it still isn't your right to risk permanently damaging your child because you can't do the research and find a way to get a legal abortion across the state line.
 
no this is about "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"

Intentional, ok prosecute away. knowing, yeaaaaah i'm not too convinced but ok. Reckless? why don't they just make it mandatory for women in Utah to just stay in bed for 9 months.
Sorry, it just seemed like people were saying, "If she could have had a legal abortion at 7 months then none of this would have happend" which is probably true, but then it opens up the can of worms that late term abort. is. I agree with you that the provision needs to be clarified. It's way, WAY to vague.
 
Ok People need to clarify this for me. Trying to intentionally miscarriage is wrong and should be punished, but an abortion is perfectly A-OK?
 
C

Chazwozel

Ok People need to clarify this for me. Trying to intentionally miscarriage is wrong and should be punished, but an abortion is perfectly A-OK?
No. People are going to get abortions regardless of how illegal others want to make them. All I was saying is that if you cut out the option of abortions in a safe, medical setting people are going to result in hiring out thugs to beat you up or use coat hangers. Legalizing abortion would definitely see a reduction in the need for bullshit like this legislation to pass.
 
Ok People need to clarify this for me. Trying to intentionally miscarriage is wrong and should be punished, but an abortion is perfectly A-OK?
Yes. One is both safe and effective. The other is only moderately effective, dangerous to the mother and dangerous to the fetus if it survives.

Same way that taking Oxycodon prescribed by a doctor is legal but taking Oxycodon that you buy off a drug dealer isn't legal.
 
C

Chazwozel

no this is about "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"

Intentional, ok prosecute away. knowing, yeaaaaah i'm not too convinced but ok. Reckless? why don't they just make it mandatory for women in Utah to just stay in bed for 9 months.
Sorry, it just seemed like people were saying, "If she could have had a legal abortion at 7 months then none of this would have happend" which is probably true, but then it opens up the can of worms that late term abort. is. I agree with you that the provision needs to be clarified. It's way, WAY to vague.[/QUOTE]

Yes, yes it does, and I would be totally against that sort of abortion.
 

North_Ranger

Staff member
I would facepalm but for the fear of breaking my face. Chaz's Picard is probably seeing a hull breach from the sheer amount of concentrated stupid...
 
C

Chibibar

Regardless of Social implication of abortion. Certified Doctor doing legal abortion is a whole lot safer than "underground abortion" that you hear stories from. It can be from coat hangers, drinking, drugs, beating, what have you. This is a bad thing. We are not talking about morals, but options for women to choose what they want to do with their lives.

If a woman don't want the baby, she will try anything to get rid of it (you read the stories and such)

What I don't agree with this law is that it punish ANYONE they deem to be reckless REGARDLESS if the mother WANT to keep the baby or not.

I.E. the slippery road. Some lawyer could see that a pregnant woman walking on ice could consider reckless and possible intentional harm toward the baby, but accidents happen. A miscarriage can happen on a fall (and how you fall). This law will consider the mother a suspect first and possible murderer. This is a bad thing. (I think so)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top