Utah's new law regarding miscarriage

zoieglow

https://www.amplifyyourvoice.org/u/AFY_Will/2010/2/24/In-Utah-Miscarriage--Criminal-Homicide

Sorry, not clicky.

ETA: Changed post title, thanks pink.

horizon1322

https://www.amplifyyourvoice.org/u/AFY_Will/2010/2/24/In-Utah-Miscarriage--Criminal-Homicide

 

two-pink-shoes

While I do think that Utah has overstepped it's bounds here, your post title is a little confusing.  I didn't read anything in there about miscarriages that just happen (as opposed to being b/c of an accident, etc) being "illegal".  D&Cs wouldn't be illegal under this law b/c they state that it has to be the removal of a live child.

buckin

two-pink-shoes:

While I do think that Utah has overstepped it's bounds here, your post title is a little confusing.  I didn't read anything in there about miscarriages that just happen (as opposed to being b/c of an accident, etc) being "illegal".  D&Cs wouldn't be illegal under this law b/c they state that it has to be the removal of a live child.

I'm with TPS on this one. Other than the negligence issues via abusive husband/ seat belts I didn't see where it stated miscarriages were illegal either because it all talked about a live child except in the negligence issues. Utah has never been fully sane but still.

kate930

buckin:

two-pink-shoes:

While I do think that Utah has overstepped it's bounds here, your post title is a little confusing.  I didn't read anything in there about miscarriages that just happen (as opposed to being b/c of an accident, etc) being "illegal".  D&Cs wouldn't be illegal under this law b/c they state that it has to be the removal of a live child.

I'm with TPS on this one. Other than the negligence issues via abusive husband/ seat belts I didn't see where it stated miscarriages were illegal either because it all talked about a live child except in the negligence issues. Utah has never been fully sane but still.

If you read the actual proposed statute, one of the stated purposes is to get rid of intentional miscarriages, which is a whole other debate. What catches me up in this new law is the inclusion of "reckless." I think that makes the law too broad and opens the door for investigations into women who have recently suffered a loss. 

CinnamonBun

kate930:

buckin:

two-pink-shoes:

While I do think that Utah has overstepped it's bounds here, your post title is a little confusing.  I didn't read anything in there about miscarriages that just happen (as opposed to being b/c of an accident, etc) being "illegal".  D&Cs wouldn't be illegal under this law b/c they state that it has to be the removal of a live child.

I'm with TPS on this one. Other than the negligence issues via abusive husband/ seat belts I didn't see where it stated miscarriages were illegal either because it all talked about a live child except in the negligence issues. Utah has never been fully sane but still.

If you read the actual proposed statute, one of the stated purposes is to get rid of intentional miscarriages, which is a whole other debate. What catches me up in this new law is the inclusion of "reckless." I think that makes the law too broad and opens the door for investigations into women who have recently suffered a loss. 

That is what I got from what I read. Essentially any miscarriage could be "investigated".  So if there is a very small link between caffeine and m/c and you happened to have caffeine everyday, according to  this new law you could be prosecuted for it. Now that is very extreme, BUT that is what it is saying.

heather_09_15_07

Did anyone read the bill?

kate930

heather_09_15_07:

Did anyone read the bill?

I read the different versions of it. Just to clarify, the House approved version contains an amendment which appears to address the miscarriage issue:

(3) A person is not guilty of criminal homicide of an unborn child if the sole reason
             69      for the death of the unborn child is that the person:
             70          (a) refused to consent to:
             71          (i) medical treatment; or
             72          (ii) a cesarean section; or
             73          (b) failed to follow medical advice.

My problem is reckless remains in the text. Further, the burden is on the woman to prove her state of mind and show her actions were not intentional, thus, still allowing investigations after miscarriages. 

kate930

If there is anyone else dorky like me who wants to read it, here is the link to the different versions:

https://le.utah.gov/~2010/htmdoc/hbillhtm/HB0012.htm

Sorry, can't make it clicky.  

buckin

https://le.utah.gov/~2010/htmdoc/hbillhtm/HB0012.htm