Recently, the Utah House and Senate passed a bill that would criminalize miscarriages in certain situations for women. The bill is an amendment to Utah's current criminal statute that provides for a criminal homicide charge when a woman obtains an illegal abortion. The amendment adds that a woman can also be charged with criminal homicide if she causes a miscarriage with "reckless" behavior (read more here).
The bill does not purport to affect legal abortions. What it does is criminalize actions that a woman may take to induce a miscarriage, or steps to procure an abortion outside the confines of the law.
The incident that spurred this change was one in which a pregnant 17-year-old paid a man $150 to beat her in order to cause a miscarriage. The child was born later and given up for adoption, but the mother was charged with attempted murder. The charges had to be dropped because the Utah law at the time did not allow for prosecution under these circumstances.
As usual, the state is busy writing ridiculous laws that will affect millions of people because of one bizarre incident. The state cannot seem to grasp the idea that isolated incidents do not represent the big picture, and that sweeping, broad laws, have negative effects that far outweigh the the negative effects of the original catalyst event.
This amendment can have broad and horrifying applications. Under the "reckless behavior" provision, a prosecutor need only show that the woman acted in a reckless manner that could have caused a miscarriage. Thus, it is possible that pregnant alcoholics could be charged with criminal homicide if they miscarry because of drinking.
Before the most recent amendment, the bill used to sweep even more broadly -
"1) (a) A person commits criminal homicide if the person intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, with criminal negligence, or acting with a mental state otherwise specified in the statute defining the offense, causes the death of another human being, including an unborn child at any stage of its development."
In this circumstance, even criminal negligence, which is below the standard of "recklessness" could warrant a homicide charge. A pregnant woman who miscarries because of drug problems, or even playing contact sports could arguably meet these requirements and be prosecuted from criminal homicide.
Although that language remains in the bill, most recently, the bill has been amended to add the following:
(4) A woman is not guilty of criminal homicide of her own unborn child if the death of her unborn child:
(a) is caused by a criminally negligent act of the woman; and
(b) is not caused by an intentional, knowing, or reckless act of the woman.
See the full text of the bill here. At any rate, the lines between "criminal negligence" and "reckless" can be blurry, and this development does not offer much hope. An woman who is an alcoholic or plays contact sports could still be found to have been "reckless" in the death of a fetus.
As the bill stands, there are still major problems. Common miscarriages could warrant criminal proceedings if accompanying circumstances are slightly suspicious. Indeed, a pregnant woman who is a victim of domestic violence or other violent attack could be found to have been "reckless," if there is the slightest suspicion that she did not want to carry the fetus to term.
Margaret Dayton, R-Orem claims the bill does not target victims of domestic violence, but only those that terminate their pregnancies illegally. However it is unclear how she defends this position. Ultimately, it is irrelevant what slimy politicians like Margaret Dayton think the bill targets; what is important is what the effects will be and what the bill actually has the potential to do.
There is no indication that there are any exceptions, specifications, or clarifications as to violent attacks or domestic violence written into the bill. Margaret Dayton can think whatever she wants and argue all day about what the bill is "targeted" to do - but the reality is, intentions are irrelevant.
People's lives and civil rights are not, and should not be a matter of academic exercise, or an experimental political playground for oppressive politicians.
Comments
I just got a link for this and am in shock. Is it not enough to prevent sex education, not provide relationship education and deny serious mental health treatment to women who are so clearly disturbed? If a woman is in such a state of mind that she would be willing to willfully and knowingly attempt to cause the death of a fetus within her, how does it reason that she will not claim some sort of mental or physical abuse or claim self defense in the "reckless" behavior that could cause miscarriage?
I agree this is bad legislation but you hurt the credibility of your argument when you resort to name calling. Calling a Utah legislator "Slimy" hurts your position. This kind of behavior is what hurts the left in court of public opinion.
I understand your argument, but I also feel that the woman in this "exceptional" incident should have been given the same prison sentence- or worse- than the man who she hired to beat her. Perhaps the bill could better define what kind of actions should be criminalized. At some point, a majority should be able to determine what is acceptable and unacceptable around constitutionally-protected rights such as abortion. We do it with gun rights, we do it with free-speech rights, with religion and civil rights... why not abortion?
Susan, I am afraid I disagree with you on making decisions based on a majority, whether it be gun rights, free speech, religion, civil rights or abortion.
Oppression isn't any less severe or morally devastating merely because a little over half the country decided on it. Under this logic, it would be perfectly acceptable if 60% of the country voted to murder the other 40%. Certainly, Nazi Germany would be justified under a theory of accepting rules merely because a majority instated them.
There must be a thorough examination and criticism of the inherent right/wrong, benefit or costs of a law, regardless of what the mob may want.
Doug, I tend not to adhere to labels, whether it be left or right, conservative or liberal. I call out slimy people when I see them whether it is Obama, Bill O'Reilly, or in this case, Dayton.
I use that language because it is what it is - it is absolutely slimy. She has set forth no reason why victims will not be "targeted," and leaves the public with only an empty statement. This isn't fantasy land. Laws don't have an effect merely because you wish it, hope it, or say it. Laws are expressed in written language, and will sweep in whatever the language says.
Her empty rhetoric is offensive, and is typical of an untrustworthy politician.
Once again let's put religion into laws! What a great idea! Let's all move to Iran. I can't wait to wear a scarf around my head and have stones thrown at me.
A woman would be guilty of negligent homicide if she is driving and gets into a wreck that is deemed her fault. A miscarriage results from the accident so now she is a murderer because everyone knows driving is very dangerous.
Whatever!
"Certainly, Nazi Germany would be justified under a theory of accepting rules merely because a majority instated them." - Much as I loathe the application of Godwin's Law so quickly, there wasn't even a "majority" that installed the rules in Germany, but rather a mere plurality which voted to apportion dictatorial power to the Nazi party and its leaders. Which speaks more highly of the danger of assigning too much power to governments in broad ways, even through putatively democratic processes like majoritarian mandates and elections. Constitutional restrictions exist for a good reason.
As for the habit of exploiting the fear of isolated incidents to carry out broad mandates, this isn't exactly a new trend in the proposals speaking toward limiting abortion rights. Proposed, but defeated, law in Virginia more or less required criminal investigation into miscarriages of any kind out the tragic case of one woman who had had an unsuccessful and legal abortion and tried to cover this up
"We do it with gun rights, we do it with free-speech rights, with religion and civil rights" - Actually we do not use majoritarian rule to determine any of these things. We use constitutional protections which limit the ability of governments, selected by often significant majorities, to interfere in these issues. And much of the interference we do have is often questionable as to its legality and necessity, even when well-intended. Abortion, like these other issues, appears to be "settled" along a constitutional protection for the privacy and autonomy of women, and again not through the application of majority rule.
"Margaret Dayton, R-Orem claims the bill does not target victims of domestic violence, but only those that terminate their pregnancies illegally."
Oh wait, so only illegal miscarriages will be illegal. Oh OK, all my worries are now resolved.
Jennifer, I linked to this column to illustrate a point tonight. Thanks for being an inspiration.
I think this article doesn't link to the final form of the bill. The lines the author cites towards the beginning have been amended to not include criminal negligence as a possible reason for a person to be charged for the death of an unborn child. Doesn't help much in my opinion, but it's something.
Ifrit - thanks for the update. I made the relevant changes. Although you're right, it really doesn't make much of a difference. The line between "reckless" and "criminally negligent" is pretty blurry. A reckless standard still would not necessarily bar prosecution of women who played sports, had drug problems, drinking problems, got into a fight, or a slew of other situations.
Miscarriages are a natural process, though some and induced. Regardless of the reason, it is highliy unreasonable to investigate every woman that has a miscarriage. Then again what else would you expect from those chauvanistic mormans in Utah, or should i say morons...
"As the bill stands, there are still major problems. Common miscarriages could warrant criminal proceedings if accompanying circumstances are slightly suspicious. Indeed, a pregnant woman who is a victim of domestic violence or other violent attack could be found to have been "reckless," if there is the slightest suspicion that she did not want to carry the fetus to term"
Where in the bill is intent to abort an element? No matter the idea behind the bill, as worded, it is simply another criminal negligence code, Like the leave "your cat in the car while it's hot" type of thing.
Lets take out abortion as an issue for one minute (because its hot button). So mom leaves kid in car and kid dies from heat. Should guy be criminally charged? Now say the kid is unborn and mom does something stupid and kills unborn kid. Criminal? Point is, despite the political motivations behind the bill, the bill itself, as worded, isn't out of the ordinary.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!