Utah Bill Criminalizes Miscarriage

[Valerie]

Definition: RU486 (brand name Mifeprex) has been widely, effectively and safely used in France, Sweden and Great Britain for years, and RU486 is also FDA-approved to be used in the United States. The abortion pill (considered a medical abortion) must be provided by a healthcare professional.

RU486 contains the synthetic steroid mifepristone that interferes with the action of the body's progesterone (the hormone that builds up the uterine lining to prepare for pregnancy). A medical abortion typically consists of the use of two medications: RU486 (mifepristone), which causes a fertilized egg to not remain attached to the lining of the uterus, and misoprostol, which causes uterine contractions. The abortion pill is FDA-approved for women up to 7 weeks pregnant (5 weeks since conception) or up to 49 days after one's last menstrual period. RU486 helps to terminate a pregnancy (allowing a woman to completely pass the pregnancy) without surgery and is 92 to 98% effective when used in combination with misoprostol. When Mifepristone is used alone, it is only 64 to 85% effective. Although some healthcare providers will still use this method for women who are more than 7 weeks pregnant, use at this time is considered off-label (meaning, no longer FDA approved).

RU486 Abortion Pill - Definition of RU486

 

[strollingbones]

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...

 

[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

 

[AllieBaba]

bones, "induced miscarriage" is abortion. Just saying.

i understand the concept of induced miscarriage....i also see a slippery slope...

should "induced miscarriage" be considered when a woman leads a lifestyle not good for the fetus?

Exactly. Will a woman be charged if she's known to drink while pregnant? Exercise while pregnant? Smoke while pregnant?

Women are already charged if they drink and do drugs while pregnant.

 

[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.

 

[uptownlivin90]

I see more teenage mothers in Utah's future...

Why? They are able to get legal abortions. If anything, this law is protecting them..... from themselves and their own stupidity.

Some women don't find out there's something wrong with their child until they're "too far along". Fact is, I honestly don't care if there are more teenage mothers in Utah but the religious right needs not bitch and moan about paying taxes to provide for single mothers when the poor girls were just "doing what Jesus would do"... or what big daddy government told them "Jesus would do".

Personally I'd rather not pay more taxes for teenage mothers... and not have teenage mothers be forced to carry pregnancies to term. However... I don't live in Utah.

On a side note, any law that protects people from themselves is a waist of tax dollars, time, and energy anyway.

 

[boedicca]

Considering that doctors can be sued for malpractice for failing to keep a four month premature baby alive; it's not unreasonable to hold a woman accountable for hiring someone to beat to death an unborn one that could survive outside of the womb.

 

[rdean]

Republicans don't care about those babies. "If you feed 'em, they'll breed".

 

[goldcatt]

The problem is the standard proposed in the homicide bill isn't just "intentional", it's also "reckless". So it goes beyond hiring somebody to hit her in the stomach with a baseball bat and into unintentional risky behavior.

Utah Legislature HB0012

So what is the standard for recklessness in Utah? Anybody know before we all start googling?

 

[goldcatt]

Full info including floor debate and proposed amendments:

H.B. 12 Bill Documents - 2010 General Session

 

[boedicca]

The problem is the standard proposed in the homicide bill isn't just "intentional", it's also "reckless". So it goes beyond hiring somebody to hit her in the stomach with a baseball bat and into unintentional risky behavior.

Utah Legislature HB0012

So what is the standard for recklessness in Utah? Anybody know before we all start googling?

The legal definition of reckless generally involves knowledge that the risk is high, and the accused engaging in that high risk activity with that knowledge.

 

[goldcatt]

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?

 

[goldcatt]

The problem is the standard proposed in the homicide bill isn't just "intentional", it's also "reckless". So it goes beyond hiring somebody to hit her in the stomach with a baseball bat and into unintentional risky behavior.

Utah Legislature HB0012

So what is the standard for recklessness in Utah? Anybody know before we all start googling?

The legal definition of reckless generally involves knowledge that the risk is high, and the accused engaging in that high risk activity with that knowledge.

In general. But states differ on how they apply that standard. In some states it is considered "reckless" behavior to ride without a seat belt or drive more than 10 - 15 miles per hour over the posted speed limit. I'm looking for examples of Utah statutes to compare their standard, but the addition of "reckless" is troubling to me simply because it is so subjective.

 

[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?

 

[Old Rocks]

The problem is the standard proposed in the homicide bill isn't just "intentional", it's also "reckless". So it goes beyond hiring somebody to hit her in the stomach with a baseball bat and into unintentional risky behavior.

Utah Legislature HB0012

So what is the standard for recklessness in Utah? Anybody know before we all start googling?

The legal definition of reckless generally involves knowledge that the risk is high, and the accused engaging in that high risk activity with that knowledge.

sking?

 

[chanel]

i understand the concept of induced miscarriage....i also see a slippery slope...

should "induced miscarriage" be considered when a woman leads a lifestyle not good for the fetus?

Exactly. Will a woman be charged if she's known to drink while pregnant? Exercise while pregnant? Smoke while pregnant?

Women are already charged if they drink and do drugs while pregnant.

I did not know that. Does that vary from state to state? There are many, many drug using pregnant girls in my area.

 

[strollingbones]

okay lets not discuss general drugs....pot or booze...but carry it one step more....women who get gestational diabetes....women who drink too much caffine...women who....you see how this could go....that is why the reference to "the handmaiden's tale"

 

[goldcatt]

If you read the bill summary at the first link I posted medical issues are basically exempt, so are things like refusing a c-section. But I'm wondering what would qualify as "reckless" behavior under their standard, and how they're going to apply it. (Assuming the bill is signed, which I am willing to bet it will be.)

It's also for the entire duration of the pregnancy, remember. If a woman early on feels good enough to do some heavy lifting or exercise, would that be reckless? If she's late term and her seat belt doesn't fit anymore, and she gets in an accident without it? I don't have much sympathy for women who hire people to push them down the stairs, but there's a whole lot of other situations this could be applied to if they want to. That's what bothers me.

 

[AllieBaba]

Exactly. Will a woman be charged if she's known to drink while pregnant? Exercise while pregnant? Smoke while pregnant?

Women are already charged if they drink and do drugs while pregnant.

I did not know that. Does that vary from state to state? There are many, many drug using pregnant girls in my area.

It has to do if the baby test positive for drugs when it's born. I don't know the protocol for testing the babies. I imagine the law has to already be involved to monitor mom while she's pregnant, and either the law is already involved when the baby is born or a medical professional calls child welfare if they suspect drug use at the birth.

I just know that a good percentage of the women and children in treatment when I worked there were there because they'd tested positive during pregnancy and/or the baby tested positive at birth, and they were court-ordered to go to treatment and lost custody of their children as well. They were given the choice of either going to jail and the child staying in foster care, or drying out in treatment and being able to have their baby with them shortly after arriving, if they worked the program.

 

[manifold]

What is this country coming to anyway?

The day that a woman is denied the right to beat a seven month old fetus to death in her womb is a sad day for individual liberty everywhere.

And of course the terrorists win.