Note: This is the first installment of a two-part post examining the recent firestorm over a new Utah law that allows women to be prosecuted for criminal homicide if they have or seek an illegal abortion. This post looks at the events of the past week as activists forced changes to the proposed law, and the national implications of a slightly-modified version has been signed into law. Next time, we take a look at the case that led the Utah legislature to remove criminal immunity for women seeking abortions – and imagine what a sane and effective legislative response might have looked like.

On Monday, Utah Governor Gary Herbert signed H.B. 462 into law, amending the state’s criminal code to classify illegal abortions as criminal homicide. Utah is the first and only state to pass legislation to criminally prosecute women who seek or have illegal abortions.

It is important to note that this law was nearly even worse – and it would have been if not for the efforts of thousands of activists around the country. The Utah legislature passed a previous version of the bill, then H.B. 12, by overwhelming margins that included language defining some miscarriages as illegal abortions. Specifically, any miscarriages that occurred after “intentional, knowing, or reckless” behavior on the part of a woman would be open to prosecution as criminal homicide.

Beyond the scope of an already abhorrent bill, the standard of “reckless” behavior would have been open to wide interpretation by overzealous prosecutors. Experts at the ACLU of Utah expressed concern that this would leave women vulnerable to criminal prosecution in a wide variety of all-to-plausible circumstances: if they failed to leave abusive relationship and suffered a miscarriage, if injection drug users became pregnant and miscarried, or if a miscarriage resulted after something as simple as a car accident but the woman wasn’t wearing a seat belt.

Prosecuting women who are so desperate that they are forced to seek an illegal abortion is apparently among the most pressing issues facing the Utah legislature. The House and Senate managed to pass an updated version of the bill within a day of Gov. Herbert’s request, and on Monday, he vetoed the original bill and signed the “fixed” version into law.

Gov. Herbert’s veto letter referenced the national outcry over the “criminal miscarriage” provisions of this bill. "I appreciate the willingness of Representative Wimmer to re-evaluate the impact of potential unintended consequences arising from the inclusion of 'reckless' behavior."

It’s absolutely critical to remember two things:


Utah politicians obviously hope that removing the word “reckless” from this law will give them political cover for this direct assault on women’s rights and bodily autonomy. The bill’s author, State Rep. Carl Wimmer, recently said “I don't want the false-rumors information that are going around this bill to detract from an otherwise very, very good piece of legislation.”

Every time I read it, that sentence gives me chills: “An otherwise very, very good piece of legislation.” This law sure as hell isn’t a good for women in Utah, so good for whom?

There is only one answer: this bill is great for the anti-abortion movement.

This law is not an outlier. It is designed to fuel a whole new wave of anti-abortion efforts by targeting not just those who would provide illegal abortions, but also the women who seek them. This bill is fantastic precedent for those seeking to criminalize abortion in other states, which (surprise!!) is exactly what Rep. Wimmer and Gov. Herbert have in mind.

In a March 5 interview with the Salt Lake Tribune, Wimmer said that “he wants his bill to be a national model for the ‘pro-life’ movement.” He continued, saying that “We will be the only state in the nation that will do what we're attempting to do here: hold a woman accountable for killing her unborn child.” (If you have the time, Angry Mouse’s profile of Rep. Wimmer over at DailyKos is worth a read.)

In that same Tribune article, Utah State Senator Ross Romero offered a totally different approach: preventing unwanted pregnancies rather than throwing women in jail for having or seeking abortions.

"I want to remind the body that what prompted this bill and this whole issue was the pregnancy of a 17-yer-old woman who hired someone to assist her in an abortion," Romero said, noting there could be a better way to deal with the issue besides criminalizing that act.

"A better policy would be to have better education and resources available in the community so we can stop pregnancies before they become an issue."

In fact, Sen. Romero is exactly right. The Utah legislature needs to take a long, hard look at the factors that left this 17-year-old woman so desperate and helpless that she was willing to put herself in danger by attempting to self-induce an abortion.

• Utah law prohibits teaching about condoms and contraception in sex education classes.  
• Utah has fewer than twenty Title X family planning clinics in the entire state.
• Utah mandates parental notification and consent for minors seeking abortions.
• Utah has extremely limited access to safe, legal abortion services. In fact, 93% of Utah counties do not have an abortion provider.

But at least Gov. Herbert and Rep. Wimmer will sleep better knowing that Utah has a new law that allows the state to prosecute women for having or seeking an illegal abortion.


And make sure to check back soon for the second part of this post, “Utah’s Road Not Taken: Sex Ed, Family Planning, and Compassion”