Utah Bill Criminalizes Miscarriage

[Valerie]

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.

Measure on illegal abortions heads to governor - Salt Lake Tribune

The Handmaid's Tale is a feminist dystopian novel, a work of science fiction or speculative fiction,[1] written by Canadian author Margaret Atwood[2][3] and first published by McClelland and Stewart in 1985. Set in the near future, in a totalitarian theocracy which has overthrown the United States government, The Handmaid's Tale explores themes of women in subjugation and the various means by which they gain agency.

The Handmaid's Tale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Coyote]

Your headline is misleading. The law criminalizes the act of creating a miscarriage not a miscarriage caused by natural events. But then we have never accused the left of being honest now have we?

She was being honest.

Her title was general but accurate and the second line of her OP stated:

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.

 

[Valerie]

Sounds like this Dayton guy has it backwards...

"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."

 

[Valerie]

76-2-103. Definitions.
A person engages in conduct:
(1) Intentionally, or with intent or willfully with respect to the nature of his conduct or to a result of his conduct, when it is his conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result.
(2) Knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to his conduct or to circumstances surrounding his conduct when he is aware of the nature of his conduct or the existing circumstances. A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to a result of his conduct when he is aware that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result.
(3) 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.
(4) With criminal negligence or is criminally negligent with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise in all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.

(emphasis added)

Utah Code

Now we know how the State of Utah defines the term "reckless" in its criminal code. Thoughts?

Thanks for posting this!




From Bones' original article:

"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 where a pregnant woman who fell down the stairs at her home was arrested under the suspicion she was trying to terminate her pregnancy.

"This statute and the standards chosen leave a large number of pregnant women vulnerable to arrest even though they have no intention of ending a pregnancy," Paltrow said. "Whether or not the legislature intended this bill to become a tool for policing and punishing all pregnant women, if enacted this law would permit prosecution of a pregnant woman who stayed with her abusive husband because she was unable to leave. Not leaving would, under the 'reckless' standard, constitute conduct that consciously disregarded a substantial risk," Paltrow explained.

While many states have fetal homicide laws most apply only in the third trimester. Utah's bill would apply throughout the entirety of a woman's pregnancy. Even first trimester miscarriages could become the basis for a murder trial.

 

[Valerie]

Full info including floor debate and proposed amendments:

H.B. 12 Bill Documents - 2010 General Session

Goldcatt, can you explain the legal arguments against simply taking the word reckless out of the bill???

 

[Ravi]

How sad and controlling. I feel sorry for women that live in Utah...not that they don't have enough problems already.

I wonder if the man that got the woman pregnant will also be charged with reckless endangerment and/or murder? That would be the only fair way to go about it.

 

[Valerie]

How sad and controlling. I feel sorry for women that live in Utah...not that they don't have enough problems already.

I wonder if the man that got the woman pregnant will also be charged with reckless endangerment and/or murder? That would be the only fair way to go about it.

Just by virtue of impregnating someone who terminates her pregnancy illegally?

 

[Mr Natural]

Why are there no funerals for miscarriages?

 

[Valerie]

Why are there no funerals for miscarriages?

I think sometimes there are....It's a personal choice.

 

[Ravi]

How sad and controlling. I feel sorry for women that live in Utah...not that they don't have enough problems already.

I wonder if the man that got the woman pregnant will also be charged with reckless endangerment and/or murder? That would be the only fair way to go about it.

Just by virtue of impregnating someone who terminates her pregnancy illegally?

Sure, why not? The guy obviously choose the wrong person to impregnate...therefore he shares responsibility.

 

[Valerie]

How sad and controlling. I feel sorry for women that live in Utah...not that they don't have enough problems already.

I wonder if the man that got the woman pregnant will also be charged with reckless endangerment and/or murder? That would be the only fair way to go about it.

Just by virtue of impregnating someone who terminates her pregnancy illegally?

Sure, why not? The guy obviously choose the wrong person to impregnate...therefore he shares responsibility.

Like he's an accomplice to stupidity?


I don't think that would hold up in court. Talk about a slippery slope...

 

[Ravi]

Just by virtue of impregnating someone who terminates her pregnancy illegally?

Sure, why not? The guy obviously choose the wrong person to impregnate...therefore he shares responsibility.

Like he's an accomplice to stupidity?


I don't think that would hold up in court. Talk about a slippery slope...

So you are okay with punishing a woman that skis while pregnant and accidentally miscarries but aren't willing to put a share of blame on the man that impregnated the woman skier?

 

[boedicca]

76-2-103. Definitions.
A person engages in conduct:
(1) Intentionally, or with intent or willfully with respect to the nature of his conduct or to a result of his conduct, when it is his conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result.
(2) Knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to his conduct or to circumstances surrounding his conduct when he is aware of the nature of his conduct or the existing circumstances. A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to a result of his conduct when he is aware that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result.
(3) 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.
(4) With criminal negligence or is criminally negligent with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise in all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.

(emphasis added)

Utah Code

Now we know how the State of Utah defines the term "reckless" in its criminal code. Thoughts?

Hiring somebody to pummel to death an unborn baby would seem to be pretty reckless.

Just sayin'.

 

[Valerie]

Sure, why not? The guy obviously choose the wrong person to impregnate...therefore he shares responsibility.

Like he's an accomplice to stupidity?


I don't think that would hold up in court. Talk about a slippery slope...

So you are okay with punishing a woman that skis while pregnant and accidentally miscarries but aren't willing to put a share of blame on the man that impregnated the woman skier?

Where'd you get that idea???

 

[goldcatt]

Full info including floor debate and proposed amendments:

H.B. 12 Bill Documents - 2010 General Session

Goldcatt, can you explain the legal arguments against simply taking the word reckless out of the bill???

Me, personally? No, I can't. Intentional I can understand and even support. But reckless is so subjective it leaves the door wide open for abuse.

Look at the standard from the Utah Criminal Code. There are actually two parts if you break it down. The first part applies to the woman, in that she had to know (usually applied as "or have reason to know") there was a "substantial" risk of miscarriage in the facts as she saw them and did the act anyway. But the term "substantial" is not defined by the woman, but by the State. So here we have the State defining the acceptable level of risk.

The second is that whatever she did has to deviate from the usual standard of care - but this is not from her eyes, rather from the State's. Standard of care basically refers to the level of caution reasonably expected in the face of risk, and it is not set individually but by either a statute or case law. So here we have the State defining what level of caution is necessary to avoid the risk or be responsible for homicide.

Inserting the "reckless" standard was probably intended to discourage and prosecute things like drug use, etc. etc. But the problem is once this is signed, it's entirely up to prosecutorial discretion and the judges in criminal courts (both of which are elected, BTW) to interpret and apply it. What the bill's drafter says now matters for exactly Jack and Shit.

I hope they use common sense, but all it takes is one or two prosecutors and/or judges on a mission political or otherwise and there is the potential for serious abuse.

 

[Valerie]

76-2-103. Definitions.
A person engages in conduct:
(1) Intentionally, or with intent or willfully with respect to the nature of his conduct or to a result of his conduct, when it is his conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result.
(2) Knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to his conduct or to circumstances surrounding his conduct when he is aware of the nature of his conduct or the existing circumstances. A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to a result of his conduct when he is aware that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result.
(3) 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.
(4) With criminal negligence or is criminally negligent with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise in all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.

(emphasis added)

Utah Code

Now we know how the State of Utah defines the term "reckless" in its criminal code. Thoughts?

Hiring somebody to pummel to death an unborn baby would seem to be pretty reckless.

Just sayin'.

Yes, of course....The danger is in the BROAD definition.

 

[Ravi]

Like he's an accomplice to stupidity?


I don't think that would hold up in court. Talk about a slippery slope...

So you are okay with punishing a woman that skis while pregnant and accidentally miscarries but aren't willing to put a share of blame on the man that impregnated the woman skier?

Where'd you get that idea???

That's what this bill does ... it allows the possibility that a woman could be charged for miscarrying because she "recklessly" did something as innocent as skiing or yoga or eating a big mac.

 

[goldcatt]

76-2-103. Definitions.
A person engages in conduct:
(1) Intentionally, or with intent or willfully with respect to the nature of his conduct or to a result of his conduct, when it is his conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result.
(2) Knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to his conduct or to circumstances surrounding his conduct when he is aware of the nature of his conduct or the existing circumstances. A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to a result of his conduct when he is aware that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result.
(3) 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.
(4) With criminal negligence or is criminally negligent with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise in all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.

(emphasis added)

Utah Code

Now we know how the State of Utah defines the term "reckless" in its criminal code. Thoughts?

Hiring somebody to pummel to death an unborn baby would seem to be pretty reckless.

Just sayin'.

That would fall under "intentional". Just sayin'.

 

[boedicca]

The key point is Gross Deviation of Standard of Care.

A woman skiing in the first trimester shouldn't fall under that definition - third trimester would probably cross the line. Just my opinion.

 

[csbarry]

A bill passed by the Utah House and Senate this week 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 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

Utah Bill Criminalizes Miscarriage | RHRealityCheck.org


shades of atwood's "hand maiden's tale"

"Utah's law is directed to the woman herself and that's what makes it different and dangerous", these are the words exactly; so tell, if the women succeeds in ending the life of the fetus, why shouldn't she be charged with first degree murder?