Gov. Herbert of Utah currently has Bill 12 on his desk that if signed would make intentional miscarriages punishable by law. This legislation came about when a 17 year old girl who was 7 months pregnant paid a man $150 to beat her up in hopes that it would result in her having a miscarriage and the baby dying. This was an irresponsible and desperate attempt that has now resulted in swift legislation that if enacted could result in the investigation of many accidental miscarriages aswell. This worries many people as Marina Lowe said, “so many things can happen, and it’s all in the eye of the beholder — that’s what’s very dangerous about this legislation.” Furthermore, what’s unique about this Bill is that it punishes the woman, where previous precedent punished the individual who assisted the woman. Do you think this type of legislation is justified considering it’s based off of the actions of a desperate 17 year old girl? What if a desperate woman tries to induce a miscarriage and is seriously injured and needs medical attention, would this bill make cause her to refrain from going to the doctor out of fear of being prosecuted? Or what about others who have an actual accident which results in them having a miscarriage, does it now justify criminal investigation? What other adverse effects would this bill cause? As one Ms. Paltrow commented regarding this statute, ”Anybody that desperate is not going to be deterred by this statute.” Thus, what would be the benefits of creating such legislation, if any?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/01/us/01abortion.html
March 3rd, 2010 at 12:46 am
There is definitley something to say about the problems that may result from further restricing women’s reproductive rights. I for one like to stay away from the issue as much as possible because I feel it’s really an issue of personal responsibility, for the most part. But, I will say this for your post Mr. Levesque, you bring up a lot of unanswerable questions if try to keep in mind that law should be forward looking. A miscarraige is one of the most heartbreaking things a person can go through, should the state be trying to make that more difficult. I tend to say no.
As to the question of benefits, its hard to say. I would think as a law-making body you would first want to establish that this is a real, developing trend, not just a terrible anicdotal blip on the people-doing-awful-things radar.
One last point of interest for me as I read through this was the question of whether this might just be an outgrowth of Utah’s strict abortion laws. If there isn’t any other option for a panicked teenage mother, she’s bound to find an alternative. This alternative appears to be forcing miscarraiges. That brings us back to your last question of benefits. The intended benefits are clear, to stop mother’s from having their unborn childern beaten to death before they get out of the womb, and consequently to close the market for this activity. Would a more progressive sex ed policy eliminate the need for these questions?
March 3rd, 2010 at 5:54 pm
I first want to state that the questions I asked do have answers. There may even be multiple answers depending on what your stance is. Either way you could interpret these answers as a matter of opinion. Furthermore, the fact that government is defining lines regarding this issue shows that they believe answers exist as well.
Also, this bill may have more to do with moral philosophies that are present here in Utah rather than it being an outgrowth of Utah’s strict abortion laws. Roe v Wade as decided by the supreme court held that women may abort their pregnancy for any reason up until the baby is viable or able to live outside the womb. Thus, federal law stipulates the right for women to abort and state law can’t overrule that fact. While yes some states do impose greater roadblocks in hopes of deterrence, it’s still a right protected under federal law.
The way we need to approach this kind of bill is to ask what kind of incentives does it create? Do we need government intervention? There is no evidence that concludes one to believe this is an ongoing trend that has lead to the creation of a market. From my viewpoint, this would create an incentive for women to not seek treatment if needs be for fear of being charged with a crime. Which could lead to the death of both the mother and offspring. While, I concur that this is a controversial topic and people tend to feel very strongly one way or the other, the case in point is that it will lead to greater inefficiencies regarding Utah’s abortion law and it goes further than any other state in prosecuting the woman herself for an action she took.
Another good piece of literature by the Utah ACLU which discusses some of the adverse consequences regarding this bill can be found at
http://www.acluutah.org/HB12VetoLetter.pdf
March 4th, 2010 at 10:06 am
The letter by Karen McCreary and Marina Lowe addressed to Governor Gary R. Herbert as a petition against the signing of House Bill 12, brings up several points in favor of their and levesque’s position.
That is, placing such restrictions on how woman go about their abortions may have negative unintended consequences that affect innocent soon to be mothers who have miscarriages as well. The example of the car wreck scenario that is mentioned in the letter provides a perfect example of what could go wrong with this type of legislation. Too much would be left up to interpretation to distinguish what does and doesn’t constitute a reckless or knowledgeable attempt. It’d be easier in a case such as this to find a mother guilty because of the leftover bruises, but even she could use the excuse that she was beat up by someone without her knowledge.
McCreary and Lowe of the American Civil Liberties Union suggest that mothers who are innocent and guilty may avoid treatment after attempts or accidents out of fear of being prosecuted and reaping harsh sentences. This fear might translate into more deaths than the legislation sets out to prevent. Now both mother and child could die if the injuries and fears are serious. The rules for what is an acceptable method of abortion have to be outlined well. Even then, we may end up sentencing mothers who are innocent and letting those who are not go free. Distinguishing a reckless attempt from a reckless accident would be a matter of interpretation left up to the individual courts.
March 9th, 2010 at 1:51 pm
Just an update, Gov. Herbert sent Bill 12 back to the legislature to work out some of the issues that have been mentioned by the ACLU and others. It appears as though a new bill will be presented shortly and should prove to be less ambiguous than the last. Still, this type of legislation is the first of its kind, in that it would allow the woman to potentially be criminally charged for attempted murder or murder of her unborn child. Furthermore, there are still many unseen consequences that could come about, as this kind of action by a woman is far from commonplace.
March 12th, 2010 at 8:50 pm
This article (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/culture/family/3055-legal-vs-illegal-murder-abortion-in-utah) calls this law an attempt to tie up a loophole in Utah abortion law. Without a measure like this a pregnant woman has the incentive to attempt a dangerous alternative abortion technique because it could be more private and cheaper than going to a clinic.
Doesn’t it seem a little odd though that the man she paid to beat her is in jail and her only punishment was suffering the beating she asked for? I’m not saying that he is in the right, but it seems a little like ordering a hit and with the hit-man being the only one that gets caught while the mob boss stays clean.