Utah Bill Criminalizes Miscarriage

[☭proletarian☭]

General definition of recklessness:

Rashness; heedlessness; wanton conduct. The state of mind accompanying an act that either pays no regard to its probably or possibly injurious consequences, or which, though foreseeing such consequences, persists in spite of such knowledge.

Recklessness transcends ordinary Negligence. To be reckless, conduct must demonstrate indifference to consequences under circumstances involving peril to the life or safety of others, although no harm is intended.

(emphasis added)

recklessness legal definition of recklessness. recklessness synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

Does anyone else find the implications of this troubling?

Yes. Just because I drive drunk and run over your baby doesn't mean I should be held liable. Sure, it was negligent, but I never meant to hurt anyone!

 

[☭proletarian☭]

The law is cited as debunking your starwman and your response is to call me dense?

Classic. You're good at hackery.

 

[Ravi]

If abortion is legal then self-induced abortion should be legal as well. This law makes no sense.

There's no need to make up idiotic laws because one stupid woman hired someone with a baseball bat to bash her unborn baby out of her.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

If abortion is legal then self-induced abortion should be legal as well.

Hence my one objection, which I voiced in my original response. The bill should be amended to only apply after the point at which the law determines the child has a legal right to life and that right is protected by other laws. This bill's language should not state a timeframe explicitly, but should state that it rests on the point at which existing legislation and changes thereto provide legal protection to the life of the child.

 

[Valerie]

If abortion is legal then self-induced abortion should be legal as well. This law makes no sense.

There's no need to make up idiotic laws because one stupid woman hired someone with a baseball bat to bash her unborn baby out of her.

Ravi, abortion is a legal medical procedure.


Did you notice the baby in this case actually did not die...?

 

[goldcatt]

If abortion is legal then self-induced abortion should be legal as well.

Hence my one objection, which I voiced in my original response. The bill should be amended to only apply after the point at which the law determines the child has a legal right to life and that right is protected by other laws. This bill's language should not state a timeframe explicitly, but should state that it rests on the point at which existing legislation and changes thereto provide legal protection to the life of the child.

You actually have a point here about the timing. But you're forgetting the politics and wishful thinking involved. This law was only partially passed to address the non-crime of the woman, baseball bat and 7-month fetus. It's there to be in place banning all abortion the moment Roe is overturned, so it has to cover the entire pregnancy.

What law these days only serves a single purpose?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

This law was only partially passed to address the non-crime of the woman, baseball bat and 7-month fetus.

And homicide laws were passed to addressed homicide, which was not a crime before laws were passed making it so.

Same for every other crime.


What's your point?

It's there to be in place banning all abortion the moment Roe is overturned, so it has to cover the entire pregnancy.

Even if Roe v. Wade were overturned (and there's a very good case for hearing it again, given McCorvey's claims of perjury), it's not the only law on the books restricting abortion.

Of course, the politics behind Roe (keeping abortion legal to make money and eliminate the Black race) don't change the fact that there other (more more sane and reasonable) arguments for restricting abortion. Nor do the personal motivations of the supporters of the bill as is mean there are no reasonable arguments for similar legislation.

 

[Father Time]

Hell, you need a license to fish, why not to abort?

Why not just get rid of fishing licenses?

 

[Valerie]

Last May in a small town in eastern Utah,

a 17-year-old girl, seven months pregnant, paid a man she had just met $150 to beat her up in hopes of inducing a miscarriage that would resolve her crisis.


He obliged, taking her to a basement and kicking her repeatedly in the stomach.

The fetus survived the assault and was born in August. The attacker went to jail.




And the girl, whose name was never released because she was under age, became the center of a legal debate — and the piece of legislation now awaiting the governor’s signature or veto. The bill would formally criminalize what she did, that is, to seek an illegal abortion.

Utah Bill Would Criminalize Illegal Abortions - NYTimes.com

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Either someone hacked Val's account or she's hoping we'll forget the last 7 pages of her arguing the opposite of what she just posted.

 

[Valerie]

Either someone hacked Val's account or she's hoping we'll forget the last 7 pages of her arguing the opposite of what she just posted.

Did it ever occur to you that I'm not "arguing" ?

 

[Valerie]

There is a distinction to be made for LEGAL abortion.

There is an issue with including "reckless" in the law.

End of story.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

There is a distinction to be made for LEGAL abortion.

In other words... what I said

There is an issue with including "reckless" in the law.

No, there's not. It must be there to have any effect. Otherwise you'd have to probe that JD did belly flop off a 30ft high-dive after drinking some pennyroyal tea because she meant to kill her child at 8.5 months gestation and not just because she likes the taste of the tea and she likes swimming and is a horrible diver.

To allow such a loophole defeats the purpose and gives the bill no weight at all.

 

[Valerie]

There is a distinction to be made for LEGAL abortion.

In other words... what I said

There is an issue with including "reckless" in the law.

No, there's not. It must be there to have any effect. Otherwise you'd have to probe that JD did belly flop off a 30ft high-dive after drinking some pennyroyal tea because she meant to kill her child at 8.5 months gestation and not just because she likes the taste of the tea and she likes swimming and is a horrible diver.

To allow such a loophole defeats the purpose and gives the bill no weight at all.

Why must it be there to have any effect? Intent is the key, right?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Intent is the key, right?

No. Not only is intent to harm not necessary, a lack of such intent is generally what makes it negligent endangerment,m as opposed to, say, attemoted homicide.
No. Not only is intent not necessary, but a lack of intent to harm is generally what makes ist negligent endangerment instead of, say, attempted homicide.

We've been over this. I explained it and you attacked me for it.

Are you feeling okay? Is your MPD acting up, my dissociative friend?

 

[goldcatt]

There is a distinction to be made for LEGAL abortion.

In other words... what I said

There is an issue with including "reckless" in the law.

No, there's not. It must be there to have any effect. Otherwise you'd have to probe that JD did belly flop off a 30ft high-dive after drinking some pennyroyal tea because she meant to kill her child at 8.5 months gestation and not just because she likes the taste of the tea and she likes swimming and is a horrible diver.

To allow such a loophole defeats the purpose and gives the bill no weight at all.

Why must it be there to have any effect? Intent is the key, right?

Intent should be the key. Different mental states exist for a reason, the higher the penalty the higher the required mental state. And the State must prove mental state as an element of the crime in order to preserve the presumption of innocence.

So I guess trolletarian is saying proving its burden on each element of the crime is too much to ask of the State in a murder case?

 

[Valerie]

Intent is the key, right?

No. Not only is intent to harm not necessary, a lack of such intent is generally what makes it negligent endangerment,m as opposed to, say, attemoted homicide.
No. Not only is intent not necessary, but a lack of intent to harm is generally what makes ist negligent endangerment instead of, say, attempted homicide.

We've been over this. I explained it and you attacked me for it.

Are you feeling okay? Is your MPD acting up, my dissociative friend?

 

[Valerie]

>

law is not made suddenly...its made one little pebble at a time...one decision at a time...and suddenly you have foundation for a major law...

I think you make a good point about the slippery slope created by the legal precedent.


I found this old article on the subject...

The prosecution of women who are pregnant and use drugs lies at the intersection between the war on drugs and the war on reproductive rights. Women who are pregnant have been wrongly and disproportionately penalized for their conduct in several ways, including the permanent removal of children absent any evidence of harm to the fetus or child. Drug use during pregnancy also has resulted in prosecutions for child abuse, delivery of drugs to a minor, and other charges that endow fetuses with legal rights that effectively create a false dichotomy between fetal interests and maternal autonomy, health and well-being.

Although most states, legislatures, and courts that have considered the issue have rejected criminal prosecutions for pregnant women who suffer from drug problems, a few jurisdictions, most prominently Texas and South Carolina, have pursued such prosecutions. A 2004 law makes it a felony in Texas to smoke marijuana while pregnant, with a prison sentence of 2 to 20 years. In 1996, the South Carolina Supreme Court legitimized these prosecutions with its decision in the case Whitner v. South Carolina, which ruled that a fetus was considered a person under the state child abuse laws. Since then, several dozen women have been arrested and convicted under this unique and dangerously misguided law.

Drug use during pregnancy is a health issue that should be addressed by health professionals, not law enforcement and criminal justice agents. Every major medical and public health organization in the country opposes the arrest and jailing of pregnant women for drug and alcohol use - a response that endangers rather than promotes fetal and maternal health.

Nevertheless, false public hysteria over the so-called 'crack-baby epidemic' fueled by the war on drugs has led to widespread misinformation about the actual harms of maternal drug use, particularly cocaine. Policy makers and prosecutors have also wholly ignored possible risks of paternal exposure to tobacco and alcohol to fetuses. By contrast, scientific studies, such as the comprehensive review conducted by Deborah Frank and colleagues, Growth, Development, and Behavior in Early Childhood Following Prenatal Cocaine Exposure: A Systematic Review, conclude that the fetal harms attributed to illicit drug use generally, and cocaine use in particular, are often highly speculative and significantly overstated and typically pale in comparison to the known dangers posed to fetal development by two licit drugs, namely alcohol and tobacco.

Drug Policy Alliance has represented many of the country's leading medical and public health organizations, and most prominent scientific researchers and bio-medical ethicists in amicus briefs filed in state and federal court in several cases opposing the criminalization of drug use during pregnancy.

Women & Pregnancy

BUT we can certainly see the differences with drugs and alcohol vs having your boyfriend whack your belly with a baseball bat.

 

[Valerie]

Intent is the key, right?

No. Not only is intent to harm not necessary, a lack of such intent is generally what makes it negligent endangerment,m as opposed to, say, attemoted homicide.
No. Not only is intent not necessary, but a lack of intent to harm is generally what makes ist negligent endangerment instead of, say, attempted homicide.

We've been over this. I explained it and you attacked me for it.

Are you feeling okay? Is your MPD acting up, my dissociative friend?

Please provide a link to this attack you are SUCH a victim of.

 

[Valerie]

In other words... what I said


No, there's not. It must be there to have any effect. Otherwise you'd have to probe that JD did belly flop off a 30ft high-dive after drinking some pennyroyal tea because she meant to kill her child at 8.5 months gestation and not just because she likes the taste of the tea and she likes swimming and is a horrible diver.

To allow such a loophole defeats the purpose and gives the bill no weight at all.

Why must it be there to have any effect? Intent is the key, right?

Intent should be the key. Different mental states exist for a reason, the higher the penalty the higher the required mental state. And the State must prove mental state as an element of the crime in order to preserve the presumption of innocence.

So I guess trolletarian is saying proving its burden on each element of the crime is too much to ask of the State in a murder case?

Yep! Not much respect for women going on there...