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.

News articles have placed a lot of focus on the "reckless" language. However, a close reading of the bill seems to indicate that the law sweeps 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."

See the full text of the bill here.  Thus, 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.

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 "negligent" or "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.

hope Schlag isn't from Utah

being an active advocate for unsafe sex, im kind of a huge fan of abortion

we are way too overpopulated anyway

utah is always a bit crazy, but i do agree with it, especially with the instance that brought about this piece of legislation

does every action need a law put inplace that can later be used out of context because the law was written open ended?

user image

ur loss if you dont just copy url, paste and replace toilet with toilet

wasn't that great

ill take your word on it comrade

i'm not lazy bastard, i can re-host

nn darkie heavy's imo, kid needs a medic

since i just saw predator the other night i pictured the black dude who freaks and mows down the jungle after seeing jessie the body ventura die

since i just saw predator the other night i pictured the black dude who freaks and mows down the jungle after seeing jessie the body ventura die

giggled alittle

does every action need a law put inplace that can later be used out of context because the law was written open ended?

any girl wearing a low cut shirt deserves to be raped

most laws are written somewhat vague to allow the courts to interpret them in a changing society, just like an immigrant who has been in the country for less then 4 years i think? can be deported for crimes involving moral tupitude, congress never defined moral turpitude as is with the case with reckless behavior in this statute

in b4 witch hunts

homicide requires a hominid, and, medically speaking, fetuses are not considered things which have independent lives. i`m not really an outspoken critic of decision-making assumptions, but that move is not merely unconstitutional, but it`s also impractical, unsound and stupid. however i`m guessing it`s actually popular in utah.

I'm not sure it's unconstitutional, as the constitution doesn't really have an answer for issues as such. People love to refer to it as a living, breathing document, but then most people who agree with that also think the majority of the Bible has modern day relevance.

(And no, I'm not advocating the dissolution of religion).

according to catholic church point of view, since 16'th century official position to matter was that fetus younger than 24 or 26 [don't remember exactly] week old should not be considered as a living thing
modern medical practice sees at abortion where is no heavy medical emergence situation happened, that procedure may be preformed without any harm to mother before week 24
so medical science and catholic church are at the same page
so why protestants, who since 15th century consider them selfs as a liberal and enlighten force in opposition to old, oppressive, bureaucratic, bloodthirsty and etc catholic church are so against abortions?
pff puritans...
btw historical position of church against abortions was formed after big plague in dark ages where more then third of europe population died, so repopulating countries was more of political issue than theological
due to ages that passed ever since, people forgot what it was all about
now lets talk about some numbers; population of the earth in year 1900 was about 1.6 billion, today - 6.5
made you think twice? it should