Posted on 03/01/2010 9:36:29 AM PST by Notoriously Conservative
this can’t be real
Sounds like there has to be a conspiracy to kill the baby. Hopefully it will be laid out that women who have natural miscarriages, as my first wife had, will be exempt.
An appropriate title for this matter is
None Dare Call it Slavery.
this can’t be real
I believe you are right, it has to be suspicious, and cause for concern that it might have been purposeful.
“this cant be real”
It isn’t. It’s just propaganda by a friend of the pro-murder lobby.
It isnt. Its just propaganda by a friend of the pro-murder lobby.
That sounds about right, then.
Any argument that can be adduced against protecting the child prenatally, could be applied postnatally as well. For instance, acting either deliberately or recklessly and causing the death of a newborn is illegal. One could try to argue that this "exposes women who suffer stilbirth to possible criminal charges," but of course it doesn't --- unless there is evidence of criminal abuse or neglect.
Not a good law, but for other reasons. During pregnancy, and for a while thereafter, a small percentage of women can go temporarily insane due to extreme hormonal fluctuations.
And having met one severe example of this, I do not use the words “temporarily insane” lightly. She ambushed and attempted to kill her husband while in a shrieking rage, in which she was incoherent and unresponsive. When properly medicated, she was back to normal.
This is not a good reason to criminally punish someone.
To make matters worse, the number one form of mental illness is severe depression and despondency, not a good frame of mind to be in when undergoing a major physical and psychological stress.
The law should be rewritten so that women in the later stages of pregnancy, or for a few weeks thereafter, if they attempt some action like this, they should be given a physical and psychological examination. And only if they are shown to be normal should there be any criminal evaluation made about this type of behavior.
For once, the feminists and activists are right. If I understand the story correctly, and excuse me the pun, after the law having been passed the road is wide open for any kind of legal miscarriages.
Anyone with an IQ above 80 can willfully construe a case against a woman who lost a child this way. The possibilities for lying and setting someone up are literally endless. One just needs to be skilled in ‘creating the proper context’ and find one or two others prepared to bear false witness.
This is a prime example of good intentions having hellish consequences.
The Left is in hysterics if they think this should be a protected "right".
Its OK to have an abortion and deliberately murder your unborn baby in Utah...
and Romney “sustains” Roe V Wade...
Just dont have an a unplanned and unavoidable miscarriage and lose the baby you are looking forward to...
Something is sick in that state...
Of course not. It is an attempt by the feminazis to try to kill an pro-life law.
The other thing you should notice is that the only "interpretive" quotes (3 of them in the article) are all three offered by Leftists: Planned Parenthood, the National Advicates for Pregnant Women (don't be fooled by their name, check their website: a feminist/pro-abortion source) and Dan Savage, a gay male sex-advice columnist in Seattle--- how's that for an expert on Utah legislation and pregnancy issues? First name on their Rolodex, right
And The Independent, while quoting nobody who supports the legislation, and noting that it was "adopted overwhelmingly by both sides of the state legislature," nevertheless says in its headline that it is sparking "outrage" --- from whom? From the three "usual suspects" they quoted, of course.
You just hagve to a a little digging to unearth what's really going on here.
That’s an extremely slippery slope. Drinking more than a couple of cups of coffee a day has been found to significantly increase the miscarriage rate, and it’s hardly “natural” to consume quantities of caffeine or other coffee ingredients that wouldn’t be available in nature. And continuing to go to work or even work around the home, when a doctor has “ordered” bedrest to reduce miscarriage risk, could also be cited as a willful act to cause miscarriage.
Wrong, please read the bill:
(3) A person is not guilty of criminal homicide of an unborn child if the sole reason
for the death of the unborn child is that the person:
(a) refused to consent to:
(i) medical treatment; or
(ii) a cesarean section; or
(b) failed to follow medical advice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.