by: 
AFY_Will
AFY_WillWednesday, February 24, 2010 at 12:24:00 AM EST
Facebook
Utah is not a state known for its legislative sanity. This, after all, is a state that recently made headlines for proposing to honor gun manufacturers on Martin Luther King Day and for considering the elimination of 12th grade to cut back on education spending.
Well, it just got a whole lot worse.
Utah just became the first state in the U.S. to criminalize miscarriage and punish women for having or seeking an illegal abortion. Utah's "Criminal Miscarriage" law:
- expands the definition of illegal abortion to include miscarriages
- removes immunity protections for women who have or seek illegal abortions
- treats women as presumptive criminals and leaves them open to criminal prosecution
I spoke with activists in Salt Lake City this morning to ask how to help out of state. They all made the exact same request: Tell everyone you know about this law.
National media attention and widespread public outcry are the only way to stop women and girls in Utah from being subjected to this unreasonable and dangerous "Criminal Miscarriage" law.
Tell someone about this law right now. Post this on Facebook. Tweet it. Forward it to five friends. And ask them all to do the same.
How Utah Defined Miscarriage as Criminal Homicide
Utah's "Criminal Miscarriage" law (H.B.12) makes simple changes to the state's definition of "abortion" and the section of the Utah Criminal Code governing "criminal homicide."
This law:
- defines legal abortion as a procedure "carried out by a physician or through a substance used under the direction of a physician." Anything else that terminates a pregnancy is now defined as illegal abortion - including miscarriages.
- states that "The killing or attempted killing of a live unborn child in a manner that is not abortion shall be punished as...criminal homicide." (emphasis mine)
- removes existing immunity from criminal prosecution for women "who seek to have or obtain an abortion" or "upon whom a partial birth abortion is performed."
- applies the legal standard of an "intentional, knowing or reckless act of the woman" as punishable as criminal homicide.
Think it couldn't possibly be that bad? The ACLU of Utah is pretty sure that it could. In their letter appealing to Utah Governor Gary Herbert to veto the bill (Spoiler: He won't!), the ACLU said:
In fact, it's the "recklessness" standard that may pose the greatest threat. Again, from the ACLU:Practically speaking however, this bill changes the presumption that abortions obtained in this state are legal. If this bill is signed into law, women in this state will essentially be in the uncomfortable and unfortunate position of having to prove that abortions they obtain (or miscarriages that they suffer) are not unlawful.
The problems don't stop there. Women in physically abusive relationships could be criminally liable for not leaving their partner, regardless of their ability to do so safely or securely. Women seeking lawful abortion may be guilty of criminal homicide if her physician failed to follow exact procedures set forth in the law.A woman who fails to wear a seatbelt and is in a car accident could be charged with reckless homicide, should she miscarry. Likewise, a woman who has a substance abuse problem is likely to forego necessary prenatal care out of fear that she could be prosecuted for "knowing" or "reckless" homicide by continuing to use illegal substances while pregnant.
For a law designed to discourage illegal abortion, Utah's "Criminal Miscarriage" law will only drive abortion further underground for those who cannot safely seek or afford legal medical abortion care.
I grew up in Salt Lake City, so it takes a lot for Utah to surprise me anymore. This time there aren't even words for my outrage.
Prosecuting women who seek or obtain abortions for criminal homicide won't make abortion go away - it will only make abortion dangerous and put women's lives at risk. This law was designed to punish women who would consider having an abortion. There is simply no other way to look at it.
Speak Out. Fight Back.
Utah's "Criminal Miscarriage" Law passed the Utah House and Senate by overwhelming majorities. Seriously overwhelming. The votes were 59-12 and 24-4, respectively, meaning that even if Gov. Herbert were to veto the bill (he won't) the legislature could easily override his veto.
Just in case that wasn't enough, the bill's authors included a provision that with 2/3 members already voting for the bill, the "Criminal Miscarriage" Law would go into effect even if Gov. Herbert doesn't sign the bill into law.
The Utah Planned Parenthood Action Council, the ACLU of Utah, and their allies have been fighting this fight every step of the way. They succeeded in getting the legislature to drop the much lower legal standard of "negligence," and in light of such overwhelming opposition that success is simply heroic.
So what do we do now?
Utah conservatives love to legislate their twisted version of morality -- but they hate it when the rest of the country calls them out on their bigotry. So that's exactly what we need to do.
More than anything, Utah wants to be liked. After decades being seen as a backwards, intolerant state, we desperately want to be accepted into the political and cultural mainstream. They hate it when the state itself becomes a national joke.
This is all about PR. The state legislature backed off their proposal to eliminate 12th grade when it was ridiculed in the national press. Dropping a year from high school led to "perception problems" but national media has been silent when the state enacts one of the most dangerous abortion laws in U.S. history. That silence ends right now.
It's time for everyone to hear about Utah's "Criminal Miscarriage" law. The media must to cover it. We must to start conversations all across the country about what this means for women and girls in Utah - and what this precedent means if (or, more likely, when) other states follow suit. (A similar case in Iowa should be all the warning we need.)
So post this on Facebook. Tweet it. Forward it to five friends. And ask them all to do the same.
If we turn a blind eye towards Utah's "Criminal Miscarriage" law, their shame will belong to all of us.
Get email updates and action alerts:
by eriauna_stratton
Holy shit. So upset right now.
As stated in Salt Lake Tribune on Jan. 29th, 2010, http://www.sltrib.com/sports/ci_14295563, "It also was amended to prevent a woman who miscarries from being prosecuted under the measure."
It only prosecutes those who intentional try to miscarriage. The law is in response to a 17 yr old paid someone to beat her so she would miscarriage. Also, the law punishes women for deciding to get an illegal abortion.
As when I first read the leading article, I thought, just as you did, serioudly1988 "That can't be right".
Hmmmmmm, yes, 'when a woman lets herself be beaten to misscarriage'.
Can someone please post me the original post of this poor girls story? Apparently she wasn't actually accused or convicted of any crime, from what I can read from the links, just that the senate will close some apparent 'loophold'.
I think what is being forgotten here, is this, poor nameless girl, and her rights to her body.
I think what is not being asked, is what would drive this poor girl to 'apparently' pay someone to beat her so? Isn't that a more critical question? That she had no one else to turn too? That she felt she had nowhere else to turn? That she felt she had no safe, clinical path to take?
Hands up, anyone that has been beaten to misscarriage against their will? Now put yourselves in the shoes of someone so young and scared that they would 'apparently', be 'accussed' but not 'charged' of doing the same, wifully.
Something stinks doesn't it?
(My heart goes out to anyone that has naturally, or through accident, or through intent, misscarriaged, I don't judge you at all).
But these two nitwits............
I just can't believe the lack of human compassion or understanding that is excemplified by this law, or those that try to 'Clarify' it.
town20120 and seriously1988, I'm a born sinner through and through, I look forward to meeting you both very soon, and discussing this further, mwhahahahahahahahaha....oh, you bet ya, with your attidues, we're all going to the same place by your rules :)
The other thing that concerns me about it, though, is that if a woman seeks or obtains an illegal abortion, it seems that the focus is being shifted towards punishing her more than the doctor/whomever that is performing the procedure. Sure, I agree that if you're going to have an abortion, do it legally, but shouldn't the individual performing it be just as liable?
On the same lines, rather than punishing more people for an illegal abortion, shouldn't we be making it easier and more affordable to obtain one through legal methods? I'm not saying that we should go on a fetus killing spree, but if the woman chooses to get one, it shouldn't be as difficult to obtain as it currently is.
http://www.acluutah.org/HB12VetoLetter.pdf
Even the headline of that Salt Lake Tribune article - "House OKs bill to criminalize intentional miscarriages" - points to the fact that this is going to be dangerous ground. This impact legislation is NOT limited to illegal abortion.
And even if it were, the fact that it is designed to ARREST AND PUNISH WOMEN is still simply abhorrent. Abortion laws contain standard immunity for women themselves - and by removing that immunity, Utah has set a dangerous precedent.
In 2005, 93% of Utah counties had no abortion provider. Think about that for a minute. Many women in this state simply do not have access to safe, legal medical care if they are in need of abortion care. And rather than try to reduce the number of women who might end up with unintended or unwanted pregnancies - through education or contraceptive access/services - the Utah legislature decided to target women themselves.
The catalyst for this law was a 17 year old girl who paid $150 for someone to beat her until she miscarried.
Because she didn't have access to safe, affordable services.
Because even if she did, she was a minor.
Because she didn't have access to contraception to prevent the pregnancy in the first place.
Because the education system doesn't teach teens how to prevent a pregnancy.
And because she was in a relationship with an older man (and, depending on which account you read, dependent on him financially) who apparently threatened to leave her if she didn't get rid of the pregnancy.
This girl lived in Vernal, Utah. If you've never heard of it, there's a reason. Utah is largely rural or filled with small cities and towns with limited access to services. There hasn't been a Planned Parenthood presence in this girls area for a decade.
Things were already so bad that a TEEN GIRL PAID MONEY TO BE BEATEN rather than be forced to carry her pregnancy to term. And because this girl couldn't be thrown in jail, the Utah legislature decided to write a law to ensure that no one else will ever go unpunished for a similar act of desperation.
And just to top it all off, the Utah legislature wrote such a bad law that they managed to partially criminalize miscarriages in the process.
All so they could seek vengeance on a 17 year old girl.
Example: Preganant woman goes to emergency room with heavy bleeding and cramping. Miscarriage ensues.
Will hospital staff be required to inform police; as they are legally obligated to do with gunshot victims?
Anyone know?
I fear for the women who need medical attention for a miscarriage who may consider that the risk of prosecution is too great and put themselves in danger, even when they are completely not at fault for their miscarriage. Whether they would be prosecuted or not, who wants to put themselves at that risk?
This bill takes AWAY women's rights. Period. There is no other way to put this.
"This bill amends provisions of the Utah Criminal Code to describe the difference
between abortion and criminal homicide of an unborn child and to remove prohibitions
against prosecution of a woman for killing an unborn child or committing criminal
homicide of an unborn child."
"(a) A person commits criminal homicide if [
he] the person intentionally,49 knowingly, recklessly, with criminal negligence, or acting with a mental state otherwise
50 specified in the statute defining the offense, causes the death of another human being, including
51 an unborn child at any stage of its development."
Anything can be deemed reckless.
Regardless, as this law targets only women, it is sexist and therefore, does not have a leg to stand on.
Writing laws that sweepingly affect half the population, because of the ignorant act of one is a dangerous road to start down.
2) DO NOT PERSONALLY ATTACK PEOPLE WITHIN OUR ONLINE COMMUNITY. If you disagree with something that has been posted, address the argument or statement that the person has made, but do not attack the individual on a personal basis. We expect all of our members behave civilly, as you can surely engage in healthy debate without resorting to name calling.
http://www.amplifyyourvoice.org/main.cfm?actionId=globalShowStaticContent&screenKey=tabContent&htmlKey=Aboutterms&s=amplify
I am placing this in reply to both your comments. It is your only warning. Do not personally attack someone on the site. Do not use epithets like "tard" and "retard." Or, you will be banned.
2) DO NOT PERSONALLY ATTACK PEOPLE WITHIN OUR ONLINE COMMUNITY. If you disagree with something that has been posted, address the argument or statement that the person has made, but do not attack the individual on a personal basis. We expect all of our members behave civilly, as you can surely engage in healthy debate without resorting to name calling.
http://www.amplifyyourvoice.org/main.cfm?actionId=globalShowStaticContent&screenKey=tabContent&htmlKey=Aboutterms&s=amplify
I am placing this in reply to both your comments. It is your only warning. Do not personally attack someone on the site. Do not use epithets like "tard" and "retard." Or, you will be banned.
She was arrested but was unable to be prosecuted, so they decided to amend Utah's criminal code so that they can now target women. And in the process, they passed such poorly worded legislation that it could now covers some (though certainly not all) miscarriages when there is no realistic way to prove if they were intentional or spontaneous.
It shifts the burden of proof to women to show that their miscarriages were spontaneous miscarriages rather than intentional illegal abortions.
So while this law does not criminalize all miscarriages, anything that could be defined as "knowing" or "reckless" would leave a woman at risk for criminal prosecution.
Hey all,
I'm going to try and answer all the replies to my original post. I apologize for being long winded in advance.
Seriously1988
You're welcome. I saw a link to this blog on a friend's Facebook and thought that it wasn't right.
Sojourner....
Here is a link to the article you wanted. http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_13651599
The man who accepted money to beat her is going to get up to five years in prison. He is being punished for the crime.
"Rights to your body" only extends so far in the United States. Legally, I can not put heroine into my body. I do not mean to compare heroine to abortion. It was just the first example of restrictions on one's body by the federal government that came to mind. I'm sure there are other better ones.
"what would drive this poor girl to 'apparently' pay someone to beat her so? Isn't that a more critical question? That she had no one else to turn too? That she felt she had nowhere else to turn? That she felt she had no safe, clinical path to take?"
In the link above the woman did it because "she solicited Harrison to assault her after her boyfriend threatened a breakup if she didn't terminate her pregnancy". I don't want to answer the other question because it will take us into a moral quandary on abortion.
Hands up, anyone that has been beaten to misscarriage against their will? Now put yourselves in the shoes of someone so young and scared that they would 'apparently', be 'accussed' but not 'charged' of doing the same, wifully.
If I was in her shoes, I would give the baby up to adoption or raise it. She is already seven months along and I wouldn't get an abortion for a boyfriend. I don't understand the quotes around some of your words....
But these two nitwits............I just can't believe the lack of human compassion or understanding that is excemplified by this law, or those that try to 'Clarify' it.
I'm clarifying it because you don't know what your fighting without a clear picture. This comes with clarification. Also, name calling is a very inappropriate way to get a person's point across.
town20120 and seriously1988, I'm a born sinner through and through, I look forward to meeting you both very soon, and discussing this further, mwhahahahahahahahaha....oh, you bet ya, with your attidues, we're all going to the same place by your rules :)
This is offensive to me. I never stated my belief system or commented on anyone here "going to the same place". I did not even mention my views on abortion in my first post. I viewed the blog as inaccurate and I presented evidence to my opinion.
Trendkill3388
There is a possibility of a woman who miscarries being subject to investigation. This is similar to child protection service getting calls from neighbors or family members saying whoever isn't raising their child right. A deadbeat dad can make reports to CPS too.
Sure, I agree that if you're going to have an abortion, do it legally, but shouldn't the individual performing it be just as liable?
http://law.findlaw.com/state-laws/abortion/utah/ states that it is a third degree felony for unlawful abortion. Also, the person in the article above states the guy who was paid to beat the 17 year old is getting up to 5 years for it.
AFY Will
"House OKs bill to criminalize intentional miscarriages" - points to the fact that this is going to be dangerous ground. This impact legislation is NOT limited to illegal abortion.
It is for intentional miscarriages. No one said this limited to illegal abortions. I said it included intentional miscarriages.
"In 2005, 93% of Utah counties had no abortion provider. Think about that for a minute."
Utah is not the exception to this. A majority of states are this way.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_US_State_by_State
Utah is largely rural so I wouldn't expect a majority of counties to have abortion providers. Many of the counties have less than 25,000 people. A couple have less than a thousand people. The 7% of counties that have abortion providers probably house 2/3rds of the population. All you need is a provider in Salt Lake County and you have 37+% of the population covered.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/maps/utah_map.html
"And rather than try to reduce the number of women who might end up with unintended or unwanted pregnancies - through education or contraceptive access/services - the Utah legislature decided to target women themselves."
It targets women who intentionally try to miscarriage and seek out illegal abortions. In the unfortunate event of an unintentional miscarriage, those women are not targeted. Just like an unfortunate event of a child drowning isn't blamed on the parents. Child protective services doesn't take kids because of accidents.
The letter to the governor does make some good points about possible unintended effects from the law. The law may need to be more specific like specifying women who pay men to beat them or other intentional miscarriages scenarios. I'm unsure but I agree with the gist of the bill.
Antix280
I see this as closing a loophole as well. I don't live in Utah so this law does nothing to me.
AFY Will
"Because she didn't have access to contraception to prevent the pregnancy in the first place."
Where did you read she didn't have access to contraception?
"Because the education system doesn't teach teens how to prevent a pregnancy."
"Things were already so bad that a TEEN GIRL PAID MONEY TO BE BEATEN rather than be forced to carry her pregnancy to term. And because this girl couldn't be thrown in jail, the Utah legislature decided to write a law to ensure that no one else will ever go unpunished for a similar act of desperation."
If this teen was not properly educated then society and her parents share some of the blame for this. I don't know how much information she has received. I feel I was properly educated as a teen.
"All so they could seek vengeance on a 17 year old girl."
Hold on. This isn't to seek "vengeance" on a 17 year old girl. This law prevents unnecessary pain to the fetus (and the woman) through using illegal methods to terminate a fetus. Also, it is a deterrent for future women who think about using illegal methods. Laws and any other changes in policy occur when an event appears that energizes people to make changes. This woman did something a number of people in Utah saw as abhorrent and they're trying to close a legal loophole.
HalogenNil,
"But simply ignoring those who perform the abortions and penalizing the women who receive them is not only going against basic reproductive rights, but is also blatantly sexist."
They already do go after this people. It is a third degree felony to perform illegal abortions. It can result in up to 5 years in prison.
ArtichokeRN,
Your example probably depends on the events surrounding it. A gunshot victim means someone was shot. A child who breaks his arm is a better example. The child could have fallen skating or been beaten. There is evidence showing which is more likely.
I am not a nurse but I would guess an intentional miscarriage would involve certain kinds of bruises or other physical evidence. Not every miscarriage would have to be reported but the obvious one's probably would have to be. I'm speculating so I'm not sure.
eddiethebarbarian,
I'm sorry for your loss.
I don't believe this law will go as far as you believe. If it does then it will be repealed or fine tuned. This is if it even passes and signed into law first.
This bill takes away a women's right to get an illegal abortion or to try to miscarriage. A woman can still get an abortion.
My rant is over. Goodnight all.
following a link to http://www.theorion.com/opinion/editorial-cutting-12th-grade-1.1171145
which, if you will notice, is -not- the The Onion (a popular satirical site), but instead to The Orion (The weekly newspaper of the California State University, Chico).
I know this is a small issue, but if the author is having -this much- trouble with sources, what does that say about his interpretation of this bill?
I spoke multiple times with the two legal and legislative organizations taking point on the ground in Utah to make sure I was characterizing this as accurately as possible. I also made sure - for the most controversial an nuanced parts of the discussion (those exploring the possibility that the law leaves women vulnerable to criminal prosecution after miscarriages) - to pull directly from the ACLU's legal analysis.
You're right though, when looking for a quick link to lead to more info on Buttars' proposal to eliminate 12th grade, I wasn't as careful as I should have been. Thanks for catching this.
Everyone has a blood type -A, B O are the most common- and they have an Rh factor -negative or positive.
There's many things that can go wrong that can cause a baby to naturally miscarry; however one of the ways -that most people are NOT aware of- is called "Rh Incompatibility" Basically, the 'postiive' or 'negative' on the end of a blood type is based on having a special protien -thus they are postive for this protien and it's there- or they do not have the protien, thus the bloodtyping test shows 'negative' since the protien isn't there. When women get pregnant, which is a natural normal thing that happens.. that's why we're all here. However natural and normal and needed it is for making more people, the baby is technically a foreign thing, and the body's instinct is to react by killing off foreign invaders.. so we've evolved safeguards against every pregnancy ending in a miscarriage or death. However, it doesn't always work, especially if there's Rh compatiblity involved.
Say Jane Black marries Joe Brown. They decide to have children, and Jane has a miscarriage. They discover she's got A neg blood, and her husband has O positive. They find out the baby had a postive blood type. Because Jane's body has an absence of the blood protien, her body recognized the baby as being something that doesn't belong, and her body essetinally rejected the baby.
There are shots that women can get to prevent this from occuring, it's called Rhogram if I'm not mistaken. However, most women aren't aware of this being an issue, and they usually have to have a miscarriage to find this out. But the shots aren't failproof. This is why people had to go have blood tests done way back when, because the medicine wasn't created until the 70's and before then they had no way of preventing a miscarriage due to Rh incompatibility factor.
So, basically what AFY_Will is implying, the law will prosecute Jane and Joe for trying to start a family. Because after her miscarriage, they'll know why they miscarried and they know the risk of having another baby with a postive blood type will probably result in another miscarriage, even if they take the precautions with the shots. I've got family members who are in this situation, and they know it, yet they still want a family with their spouses. Is that so wrong? I don't think so. They shouldn't have to go to jail under this law. Which, based on how the article is written, they will go to jail.
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 C is caused by a criminally negligent act of the woman; and
27 C is not caused by an intentional, knowing, or reckless act of the woman;
If a woman miscarries, as long as it was not intentional (excuding abortion), the woman is not guilty.
36 < clarifies that a woman is not criminally liable for seeking to obtain, or obtaining, an
37 abortion that is permitted by law;
A woman is not guily for having a legar abortion.
60 (1) (a) [A] Except as provided in Subsections (3) and (4), a person commits criminal
61 homicide if [he] the person intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, with criminal negligence, or
62 acting with a mental state otherwise specified in the statute defining the offense, causes the
63 death of another human being, including an unborn child at any stage of its development.
A person is guilty if he knowingly and intentionally murders an unborn child.
66 (2) Criminal homicide is aggravated murder, murder, manslaughter, child abuse 67 homicide, homicide by assault, negligent homicide, or automobile homicide. for example, if a drunk driver were to have caused an accident and killed a pregnant woman, he would be charged for the murder of the woman AND the child. 2 counts of murder instead of the original 1 for only the woman.
The bill basically just states that intentionally killing an unborn child is equivalent to homicide of a person. Source: http://le.utah.gov/~2010/bills/hbillenr/hb0012.pdf
Many actions a woman takes might not have the intention of injuring the fetus, yet could be deemed reckless (for instance: mistakes made while driving; running up the stairs; etc). The wording of the law leaves that woman open for prosecution and implies that she is a murderer. Whether the law WILL be used to prosecute women who accidentally drove into a phone pole for murder we don't know, but the language leaves that possibility open.
So for anyone else who contributes to the death of her unborn baby, they're liable but she's not. So there's a loophole. If she's been negligent, but didn't mean to, and wasn't 'reckless' (whatever that means) then she's not criminally liable.
So this law doesn't, as you say,Because different people involved in the same action can be differently liable.
Let's say that a young girl, living with her family, becomes pregnant. She suffers from diabetes. One day at school, she goes into hyperglycaemic shock, and is rushed to hospital because the only person at the school authorised to administer insulin is away on training.
Is she liable for negligent homicide? Probably not.
Is the school liable for negligent homicide? Very possibly - by sending the authorised person away, they may very well be found to have been negligent in the care of the girl and her baby.
Also, let's say that a woman is told by her doctor that due to her history of Endometriosis and PCOS she will be unlikely to ever be able to carry a baby to full term.
Is she then obliged never to try? She would be knowingly entering into a pregnancy that would be unlikely to survive, and could be found to knowingly be committing negligent homicide - after all, if she had never fallen pregnant, the baby would not have died.
This law was created in response to a case where a 17 year old girl paid a man to beat her up, in the hopes that she would have a miscarriage at 6 months - well beyond the legal and safe time for any woman to be having a legal abortion (yes, they're still legal in Utah - over 8,000 were performed here legally last year).
When authorities went to charge the woman for a crime, they found that there was a loophole in the law, so the man who took her money and beat her up got a prison sentence, and she was let go. The state legislators saw a disparity in this case, and made a law that closes that loophole, and allows for her to be punished if she attempts to have an illegal abortion/miscarriage on purpose.
The police will have to determine intent in a case like this, but that's the way it is in many other laws. Trust me people, this is a GOOD LAW. Having a miscarriage in Utah is NOT illegal - trust me it happens all time, and my wife has even had one lately. Just don't try to do it on purpose here in Utah though.
One way the legislators might have responded to this case would have been to guarantee access to safe, legal, and confidental abortions for all women, including young women - but they went another way, didn't they.
Nope WRONG
"Hmm, Here's a story about that Right-Wing state of Utah that I think is full of crazy, out-of-date people. I hate Utah. How can I spin this article to make them look bad? Oh, I know, I'll totally leave out the "intentional" part of the headline and change it's meaning! Ha! Take that Utah!"
Seriously, I hate it when people misinform others to push their own opinions in hopes that others will join them in their cause. Really, this author should be ashamed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/01/us/01abortion.html
Wanted to underline these parts:
I think abortion should be legal, and readily available for women from all walks of life. I am thankful that the option is open to me, should I ever have to make the unfortunate descision to abort a pregnancy. I understand my opinion on this bill is probably very unpopular, but I understand the problems it will probably create. I just think 2 sides should always be presented.
Let me play devils advocate, please don't crucify me.
I don't think those that passed this bill wanted to make natural miscarriages illegal. The idea of this bill from what I've heard was in response to a woman hiring someone to beat her so she would miscarry.
I am not advocating this bill, and I can tell it's going to cause alot of problems for everyone concerned.
Part of the arguement for abortion is the fact that women who performed home abortions in the past could end up severely injured, or dead. The arguement is if you can get abortions legalized for a clinic then women would not need to perform them at home and possibly die.
I think the reason this bill is all inclusive is because it was hastily written, not because our legislators hate women, or want to punish us.
I do think they need to change it, and quick before a woman who has a natural miscarriage ends up in a penitentiary for a naturally occuring misfortune.
This is just my view on things, and it should make an interesting discussion to say the least.
A woman has the f-ing right to decide if she wants to be pregnant! My other thought--whatever happened to separation of church and state? If it truly existed, the personal business of an existing breathing human being does with her body would not be a thing decided on by the State Government.
A woman seeking an abortion is not a criminal. EVER. I do agree third trimester abortion (or abortion of a fetus that could in fact live outside the womb) should be illegal. But other than that, in this world that is rapidly becoming so overpopulated by human beings it can't FEED all of the ones who already exist, I think abortion should be legal, paid for by insurance, and in cases where a family already has one or two children, even encouraged.
why are we letting our civil liberties be taken away? was all the fighting for our rights in vain? i can't believe a court could tell me what to do with my body. my body=my choice period. nobody is even mentioning the babies born to rape victims. shame on all who blame! shame, shame!