Miscarriages in Utah Soon To Be Criminal

**Shine** · 01 Mar 2010, 07:03 AM

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2...or-miscarriage

Long story short: Because some crazy bitch paid a guy to $150 to punch her in the stomach to force a miscarriage, Utah went batshitcrazy and passed a law to criminalize "reckless" behavior by pregnant women.

The problem is with the broad scope or the term "reckless." A woman has a glass of wine, six weeks later the fetus/prehuman/unborn dies, she could be prosecuted for murder (READ: life sentence.) Same if she doesn't wear a seat belt or falls down the stairs. The law includes no provision to shield victims of spousal abuse [satire]from the righteous hammer justice that could be dropped should the fetus/prehuman/unborn choose not to be born,[/satire] and opens every miscarriage to police investigation, [satire]which I'm sure is wicked healthy for a grieving ex-soon-to-be-mother.[/satire]

What does all this mean for women?

That isn't satire.

**Razor Ramon** · 01 Mar 2010, 07:19 AM

I'm pretty sure someone will continue to fight this all the way to the state supreme court. If it makes the U.S. Supreme Court it could have terrible affects to Roe vs. Wade.

**Shine** · 01 Mar 2010, 07:23 AM

Still, Iowa already has one on the books, and it seems no one's seen fit to challenge it yet.

**Six** · 01 Mar 2010, 07:24 AM

If abortion is murder this is the next logical step. Miscarriage=Murder may be taking it too far, though. Let's compromise with manslaughter!

Fuck social conservatives.

**Pineapple** · 01 Mar 2010, 07:31 AM

I thought you were supposed to punch pregnant women?

**Razor Ramon** · 01 Mar 2010, 07:31 AM

Even with the law in the books most laws don't get challenged until someone goes to court for it. This is more for "illegal abortions" than it is for miscarriages. I mean, she paid someone to sock her in the gut to kill her pregnancy. The baby wasn't born so I don't give a shit about it. It's her body and if she doesn't want a leech connected to her the state has no right to tell her otherwise. They are just trying to prevent shit like this from becoming widespread.

**Shine** · 01 Mar 2010, 07:50 AM

I'm not trying to make this a left v. right issue because it isn't.

"What really sucks is that we had three supposed allies in the Senate, three [Democratic] women, who voted for the bill," Bird said, adding she didn't yet know why the three senators switched votes.

This is about a law, that is fundamentally flawed in it's vagueness and far too overreaching in broadness. It comes from both sides of the aisle. It's a good idea for a law, but the language of it makes it terrifying and opens doors to all manor abuse based on any one persons twisted, but justified, interpretation of it.

And this isn't some accident of language like in the law here, where you could be excused for committing a rape if you proposed to the victim afterward. It's intentionally and viciously worded in this fashion because someone had an agenda, and it passed because nobody else stopped to apply the language to its furthest reaches before passing it.

**Razor Ramon** · 01 Mar 2010, 07:58 AM

I'm not making it into a partisan issue but if it goes all the way to the Supreme Court it will be.

**Shine** · 01 Mar 2010, 08:05 AM

Originally Posted by Razor Ramon

They are just trying to prevent shit like this from becoming widespread.

But we see overreaching laws and rules run amok far too often now, like teens forced to register as sex offenders because they mooned a bus, or urinated in public, kids being charged with production/dissemination of child pornography for taking pictures of themselves, or being expelled or even arrested for taking a G.I.Joe tiny plastic rifle to school. But yeah, this is that one law that they won't take too far and abuse because they can.

Originally Posted by Razor Ramon

I'm not making it into a partisan issue but if it goes all the way to the Supreme Court it will be.

Not you, Six.