Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: kellynla

Missouri did this a long time ago. See below.

Life begins at conception—unborn child, defined—failure to provide prenatal care, no cause of action for.

1.205. 1. The general assembly of this state finds that:

(1) The life of each human being begins at conception;

(2) Unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being;

(3) The natural parents of unborn children have protectable interests in the life, health, and well-being of their unborn child.

2. Effective January 1, 1988, the laws of this state shall be interpreted and construed to acknowledge on behalf of the unborn child at every stage of development, all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of this state, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and decisional interpretations thereof by the United States Supreme Court and specific provisions to the contrary in the statutes and constitution of this state.

3. As used in this section, the term “unborn children” or “unborn child” shall include all unborn child or children or the offspring of human beings from the moment of conception until birth at every stage of biological development.

4. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as creating a cause of action against a woman for indirectly harming her unborn child by failing to properly care for herself or by failing to follow any particular program of prenatal care.

(L. 1986 H.B. 1596)


15 posted on 07/06/2007 9:01:33 PM PDT by Controlling Legal Authority
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Controlling Legal Authority
Missouri did this a long time ago.

Actually, what you cited is different from what is being reported for Colorado. IANAL, but I think it's obvious that defining an unborn child as a "person" (Colorado) is different from saying they are alive (Missouri).

For example, persons must be have their facial photos taken prior to entrance into certain restricted facilities. This definition would require ultrasounds for pregnant women at security stations, I suppose. (Perhaps a silly example, but it's Saturday morning ante-java. :-)

A more serious problem would be turning loose pregnant criminals, since a "person" cannot be incarcerated when he didn't commit any crime! (I'm assuming, of course, that nobody wants the unborn children torn from the womb, just to lock up the perpetrating mother...)

When the Left tries these types of shenanigans, conservatives rightly point out they are back-door evasions. I wish focus would go into winning hearts and minds and supporting our democratic republic, to encourage The People to change the Constitution.

21 posted on 07/07/2007 5:50:17 AM PDT by Gondring (I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson