Utah Bill Criminalizes Miscarriage

[manifold]

The answer is in the thread.

I musta missed it. All I saw was a few neofeminists crying.

Really? That's what you see here???


So you think it's okay that in Utah a woman could be charged with murder for tripping over her shoelace when she recklessly failed to tie her shoes properly?

Can you pinpoint the part of the bill that led you to conclude this is even a remote possibility?

 

[Valerie]

>

LONG TITLE
12 General Description:
13 This bill amends provisions of the Utah Criminal Code to describe the difference
14 between abortion and criminal homicide of an unborn child and to remove prohibitions
15 against prosecution of a woman for killing an unborn child or committing criminal
16 homicide of an unborn child.
17 Highlighted Provisions:
18 This bill:
19 . provides that, for aggravated murder, the aggravating factor of the victim being
20 under the age of 14 years does not apply to the homicide of an unborn child;
21 . provides that a person is not guilty of criminal homicide of an unborn child if the
22 sole reason for the death of the unborn child is that the person refused to consent to
23 medical treatment or a cesarean section or failed to follow medical advice;
24 . provides that a woman is not guilty of criminal homicide of her own unborn child if
25 the death of her unborn child:
26 . is caused by a criminally negligent act of the woman; and
27 . is not caused by an intentional, knowing, or reckless act of the woman;
28 . defines terms, including amending the definition of abortion to relate only to a
29 medical procedure carried out by a physician, or through a substance used under
30 the direction of a physician, with the consent of the woman on whom the abortion

31 is performed;
32 . describes the difference between abortion and criminal homicide of an unborn
33 child;
34 . removes prohibitions against prosecution of a woman for killing an unborn child or
35 committing criminal homicide of an unborn child;
36 . clarifies that a woman is not criminally liable for seeking to obtain, or obtaining, an
37 abortion that is permitted by law; and
38 . makes technical changes.
39 Monies Appropriated in this Bill:
40 None
41 Other Special Clauses:
42 This bill provides an immediate effective date.

Utah Legislature HB0012

 

[manifold]

This thread is a hoot for sure.

A woman tries to beat her 7 month old fetus to death, but can't be charged with anything since it's technically not illegal. So the state legislature is trying to close this loophole and all of a sudden the vaginazis here come out with guns blazing and advancing some of the most ridiculous, albeit creative, hypotheticals imaginable. Oh no, a woman might get charged with murder for eating a big mac!

Seriously, some of you should read your own bullshit with an objective eye once in a while. You'd be shocked.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

This thread is a hoot for sure.

A woman tries to beat her 7 month old fetus to death, but can't be charged with anything since it's technically not illegal. So the state legislature is trying to close this loophole and all of a sudden the vaginazis here come out with guns blazing and advancing some of the most ridiculous, albeit creative, hypotheticals imaginable. Oh no, a woman might get charged with murder for eating a big mac!

Seriously, some of you should read your own bullshit with an objective eye once in a while. You'd be shocked.

​

 

[☭proletarian☭]

No because that is prescribed by a doctor, I think?

'Plan B' Gets FDA's Over-Counter Approval : NPR

Plan B and RU486 aren't the same thing.

A common concern that people always share with me is whether or not Plan B (also known as the morning-after pill) is the same thing as RU486 (the abortion pill). Emergency contraception is often viewed synonymously with the abortion pill. It is important to realize, however, that these two medications serve two different purposes and work completely different from one another.

RU486 results in a termination of a pregnancy and is only used after pregnancy is established (and no more than 49 days since a woman’s last menstrual period). On the other hand, Plan B is used to prevent pregnancy when taken within 5 days after unprotected intercourse. It will not harm an existing pregnancy and does not cause an abortion.

The Abortion Pill vs. The Morning-After Pill... Are they the same thing?

Shame. You showed a hint of intelligence in this post- I even repped ya for it.


Then you went off the deep end.

 

[goldcatt]

I don't think an untied shoelace is above the standard of negligence, if that. But there are a lot of activities, depending on how the subjective terms of "substantial" and "standard of care" are applied, that could be included. There are some good examples on this thread already, from engaging in certain sports to failing to wear a seatbelt. I'm sure there are many others. And who decides? A doctor? Nope. A DA running for reelection? Most likely. And we've never seen politically inspired prosecutorial abuse, have we?

 

[goldcatt]

This thread is a hoot for sure.

A woman tries to beat her 7 month old fetus to death, but can't be charged with anything since it's technically not illegal. So the state legislature is trying to close this loophole and all of a sudden the vaginazis here come out with guns blazing and advancing some of the most ridiculous, albeit creative, hypotheticals imaginable. Oh no, a woman might get charged with murder for eating a big mac!

Seriously, some of you should read your own bullshit with an objective eye once in a while. You'd be shocked.

You're not usually this obtuse. What gives?

The problem isn't with intentional behavior, like willfully attempting to beat a fetus to death. If they'd stopped at intentional behavior, I doubt anybody would have a problem with it. I know I wouldn't.

 

[Valerie]

'Plan B' Gets FDA's Over-Counter Approval : NPR

Plan B and RU486 aren't the same thing.

A common concern that people always share with me is whether or not Plan B (also known as the morning-after pill) is the same thing as RU486 (the abortion pill). Emergency contraception is often viewed synonymously with the abortion pill. It is important to realize, however, that these two medications serve two different purposes and work completely different from one another.

RU486 results in a termination of a pregnancy and is only used after pregnancy is established (and no more than 49 days since a woman’s last menstrual period). On the other hand, Plan B is used to prevent pregnancy when taken within 5 days after unprotected intercourse. It will not harm an existing pregnancy and does not cause an abortion.

The Abortion Pill vs. The Morning-After Pill... Are they the same thing?

Shame. You showed a hint of intelligence in this post- I even repped ya for it.


Then you went off the deep end.

It's not a deep end at all, it's a legitimate legal concern.

You and Manifool obviously didn't bother to even read the thread.

 

[Valerie]

This thread is a hoot for sure.

A woman tries to beat her 7 month old fetus to death, but can't be charged with anything since it's technically not illegal. So the state legislature is trying to close this loophole and all of a sudden the vaginazis here come out with guns blazing and advancing some of the most ridiculous, albeit creative, hypotheticals imaginable. Oh no, a woman might get charged with murder for eating a big mac!

Seriously, some of you should read your own bullshit with an objective eye once in a while. You'd be shocked.

You're not usually this obtuse. What gives?

The problem isn't with intentional behavior, like willfully attempting to beat a fetus to death. If they'd stopped at intentional behavior, I doubt anybody would have a problem with it. I know I wouldn't.

He just looooves to say vaginanazis!

 

[manifold]

Are there already laws in any states banning pregnant women from drinking and/or smoking?

 

[manifold]

This thread is a hoot for sure.

A woman tries to beat her 7 month old fetus to death, but can't be charged with anything since it's technically not illegal. So the state legislature is trying to close this loophole and all of a sudden the vaginazis here come out with guns blazing and advancing some of the most ridiculous, albeit creative, hypotheticals imaginable. Oh no, a woman might get charged with murder for eating a big mac!

Seriously, some of you should read your own bullshit with an objective eye once in a while. You'd be shocked.

You're not usually this obtuse. What gives?

The problem isn't with intentional behavior, like willfully attempting to beat a fetus to death. If they'd stopped at intentional behavior, I doubt anybody would have a problem with it. I know I wouldn't.

Point taken.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

I don't think an untied shoelace is above the standard of negligence, if that. But there are a lot of activities, depending on how the subjective terms of "substantial" and "standard of care" are applied, that could be included. There are some good examples on this thread already, from engaging in certain sports to failing to wear a seatbelt. I'm sure there are many others. And who decides? A doctor? Nope. A DA running for reelection? Most likely. And we've never seen politically inspired prosecutorial abuse, have we?

Failing to secure a child in a car is criminally negligent, yes?


Failing to secure yourself is illegal some places.


Failing to use the seatbelt while pregnant is being negligent and outting the child's life at risk. Would she be charged? Probably not, unless there was evidence of intent. Would she be in the wrong and liable? Yes.


Playing football with a baby in your arms is putting th baby at risk, yes? It meets all requirements, yes? Playing football at seven months pregnant is no different.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

You and Manifool obviously didn't bother to even read the thread.

You can't point to any argument you've made. You just tried and it was shot down.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

The answer is in the thread.

I musta missed it. All I saw was a few neofeminists crying.

Hi, you have received -176 reputation points from strollingbones.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
you seem to miss a lot

Regards,
strollingbones

Note: This is an automated message.

Shoelaces?

 

[Valerie]

The answer is in the thread.

I musta missed it. All I saw was a few neofeminists crying.

Hi, you have received -176 reputation points from strollingbones.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
you seem to miss a lot

Regards,
strollingbones

Note: This is an automated message.

Shoelaces?

I purposely gave a ridiculous example AFTER you complained.


You really should just read the thread.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Right. The best examples you people came up with were shoelaces and sports.

Both of those examples actually prove my point.

 

[Valerie]

You and Manifool obviously didn't bother to even read the thread.

You can't point to any argument you've made. You just tried and it was shot down.

pointing ------>

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/107379-utah-bill-criminalizes-miscarriage.html

 

[☭proletarian☭]

From your link

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.

Then you went on to cry about shoelaces.

"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

Yep... instead of just charging the guy that beat her, it was decided to hold her liable for arranging it.

Now, go down three posts and what do you see?

oH, IT'S ME!

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.

Does not match with

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.

First you say it punished women for having a miscarriage and not just for inducing it. Then you say it's for inducing it.

Which is it?And the women got away scot-free? And going after the women herself for is wrong.... why?




So it's dangerous because it says women are responsible for their actions as men are?




Sounds similar o child endangerment laws.




Not based on what the articles' said thus far.



Being a victim would generally rule out acting of your own volition, no?



Many people are investigated and/or arrested under suspicion of committing crimes. If they find a baby dead at the bottom of the stairs, is there something wrong with acting as though it's possible I dropped it intentionally, if there are suspicious circumstances?

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.

It took an awful long time before you finally made what could be a valid complaint. Do they plan to cite the relevant language in the bill?

"Science now makes clear that drug use by pregnant women does not create unique risks for pregnant women, although it is likely that among those targeted for prosecutions by this statute will be women who go to term under drug usage," she said.

Huh? Crackbabies and Fetal Alcohol Syndrome- ever heard of them?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

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?

And if someone decides to accuse a woman of inducing her miscarriage?

Or will medical staffs grill women over their miscarriage as they now grill parents over children brought in with injuries (not that I disagree with that, mind you)?

Yup? how can they prove it was intentional. Yet another stupid law

Endangerment does not require intent to harm.

 

[Valerie]

So you think it's okay that in Utah a woman could be charged with murder for tripping over her shoelace when she recklessly failed to tie her shoes properly?

Thanks for proving my point.

Even skimming the thread I noticed this:

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?

Now, if you're done with emotional strawmen, do you have any real objections to this legislation?

So you're being intentionally dense???


Lame. ZZZzzzzzz