lls_mutant

Exactly.

Not to mention that there's a huge difference between correlation and causation. A woman could engage in "risky behavior" (whatever that is- I don't like the idea of defining it) and lose the baby because something went wrong in the development and nothing- absolutely nothing- could have prevented that miscarriage.

I get what they're trying to prevent, but really- the case that prompted this was extreme- a 17 year old paying a man to beat her in hopes of inducing a miscarriage when she was 7 months pregnant. That's sick, yes, and there's no way in hell I condone that one. And that's what they say they're after. But it sure as hell doesn't come out that way in the bill.

Your icon fits nicely.

From:

And that's what they say they're after. But it sure as hell doesn't come out that way in the bill.

Bingo, because you could catch that behavior with "intentional" all on its own.

One senator's explanation of why the other mens rea language was included:

"I know it's well-intentioned," Dayton said of the attempt to lift "reckless acts" from the bill, "but I don't think we want to go down the road of carefully defining the behavior of a woman."

One, what do you think you're doing when you're defining whether a woman's behavior is "reckless"? Two, so the solution to not wanting to define behavior is to just throw out a big net and catch the dolphins with the tuna? Three, don't you notice that that's exactly what the opponents of the bill are saying, that we don't want to have to carefully define the behavior of women in this context?!

I'm sorry for hijacking, but I'm really pissed.

From:

Okay, wow, angry on two different issues:

1. What the hell do they think they're doing messing with first and second trimester pregnancies?! Did they miss that massive part of Roe v. Wade where they drew a big, black line between the second and third trimesters that said "Laws, thou shalt not cross into this area"? That's overstating it--over time, it's become that the law cannot place an "undue burden" on women exercising their rights pre-fetal-viability--but it still means legislators have to be damned careful once they cross that trimester line.

Not to mention it just defies logic. It makes absolutely, positively *no* sense to pass a law allowing prosecution of someone for reckless behavior when you can't punish them for intentional behavior with the same result, which, again, thank you Roe. It's like a law that punishes someone for accidentally hitting a person while driving drunk, but not for intentionally getting into your car, aiming it at someone, and running them down.

2. Third trimester is trickier in that they may constitutionally be able to pass this law, but I agree it's a very, very bad idea. Lots of states have feticide statutes that apply to the third trimester, but I'm pretty sure they're limited to intentional acts, and/or they separate out the pregnant woman from third persons. But "reckless"? Really??

And I completely agree with your examples showing what a slippery slope this presents. Here's a bizarre one: what about a woman who becomes pregnant with multiple fetuses, like octuplets, maybe through fertility treatment, and the doctor advises the mother to terminate some of the weaker fetuses because she risks losing *all* of them if she doesn't? You could theoretically have a situation where refusing abortion could be reckless endangerment of other fetuses. The Utah law does have an exception excusing refusal of medical advice and treatment, but where do you draw the line between common knowledge and medical advice? Doctors advise women to abstain from alcohol and drugs and plenty of other things that the statute clearly is designed to capture under "recklessness," too, after all.

I worry when folks are happy about legislation in constitutionally protected areas of our lives because they happen to agree with it. If you say it's okay for the government to get involved in an area, that means they have the right to legislate in any direction they want within that area. I really doubt there are many people out there who think the government should have the right to force a woman to have an abortion. I don't understand how you can logically split the right to say "no, government, I want to keep it" from the right to say "no, government, I don't want to keep it," thus I guess I don't understand a lot of the pro-choice/pro-life debate. This kind of thing should make *everybody* nervous, no matter what side you're on.

And all this is a long-winded, soap-boxy version of AMEN. :)

From:

frolicndetour.livejournal.com

It's like a law that punishes someone for accidentally hitting a person while driving drunk, but not for intentionally getting into your car, aiming it at someone, and running them down.

This. Cynically, I suspect that's part of the point. If this law survives a constitutional challenge, it'll be that much harder to justify keeping abortion legal by any coherent rationale.

From:

I don't think that's even really cynical--that's the realist position. ::sighs:: Oh, Utah, you never fail to surprise me.

From:

frolicndetour.livejournal.com

Gaaaaah.

I get why people are upset about the case that prompted this. A 17 year old girl paying someone to beat her when she's seven months pregnant hoping to cause a miscarriage?

Maybe I'm too much of a softy, but I hear about a case like this, and even though I think seven months is pretty damn near infanticide (as Peter Singer says, the relevant difference here is geographical, not developmental), the last thing that comes to mind is "gee, if only there was a law that we could get her with." It IS sick, but how desperate do you have to be to pay someone to severely beat you to get out of your pregnancy? If she were a 27-year-old habitual drug user, my emotional reaction would be much more in line with, well, the government of Utah, apparently. (Though I'd still favor civil confinement over criminal prosecution.) This is a huge part of the reason I'm so strongly pro-choice; I think it's an inevitable consequence of making abortion illegal or de facto illegal, like it seems to be in some states, at least for minors and poor women (who if you think about it are the ones who most need access to abortion.)

The one bright spot is that they've explicitly exempted criminally negligent conduct from the bill, so I'm fairly sure that at least women who don't know that they're pregnant when they do whatever will be exempt. If I remember my crim law, "recklessness" must be conscious disregard of a known risk. (e.g. drunk driving) But... there are so many things that qualify as risks. Drinking a cup of tea? Not getting rid of your cat? Trying your hardest to give up smoking but lapsing and having just one? ARRRRRGH. No, there's no room for horrific consequences here at all. o.O Especially since so many pregnancies end in miscarriage anyway, and there's always something you can use to blame yourself.

And so much for pregnant women EVER being honest with their doctors ever again.

From:

I know. My doctor told me I could drink during my pregnancy- like a glass of wine a week. But I never touched it, because if something went wrong, I'd always wonder, you know? Even though my doctor assured me it's perfectly safe. (Heck, my mom drank when she was pregnant with us, because the dangers weren't known yet.) It just is too much of a slippery slope- it's terrifying.

I don't usually say it, but I'm strongly pro-choice as well, and this is one of the reasons why. I don't know how I feel about abortion itself, and I would never, ever require a doctor to perform it, but I really think that it's a very individual choice, and no one should have the right to make that decision for anyone else. (This is for first trimester abortions, btw. Late term, non-medical ones? Those bother me, and if the reason for terminating a pregnancy is medical, I consider it a stillbirth rather than an abortion.) But yeah, it's just... ARGH.

From:

blue-crow.livejournal.com

I feel like this is the kind of law that makes me want to draw a big HANDS OFF sign on my abdomen.

I kind of have the feeling that people who make those laws don't actually understand what it would be like to go through a pregnancy already worrying that everything you do might hurt your child, without the looming potential of court.

I mean, not that I know how it feels to have a child or anything. I shouldn't be making these laws either. (I'm reminded of a time in my history of video art class where everyone in the room but three of us were women, which is totally uncommon in my school, and the other two women started talking about childbirth and I just went, uh, I'm moving into the boy's camp because I cannot comment here.)

From:

Actually, having children or not should be irrelevant to a law like this. I was saying to

tin_o_biscuits that people who want children and haven't had them are far more at risk for these laws than someone like me, who's done. This is a law that, even if I lived in Utah, probably would never affect me unless they made birth control illegal.

It's just... I get the case that prompted this, but slippery slope. Urgh.

From:

Well, birth control isn't illegal in Utah. But teaching about it is.

These are the rules re: sexuality education:

* Utah state law requires sexuality education. Local school boards decide which subjects this education must cover and the grade level in which topics are introduced.

* Abstinence must be covered and stressed as the only completely effective protection against unplanned pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and HIV/AIDS.

* Teaching about contraceptives, such as condoms, the Pill, or the Patch, is prohibited.

* Utah state code requires that materials used for instruction in health do not include "the advocacy of homosexuality; the advocacy or encouragement of the use of contraceptive methods or devices; or the advocacy of sexual activity outside of marriage."

Title X and Planned Parenthood clinics provide contraceptives to minors, but I don't know how widespread they are. I have a feeling that neither sort of clinic is very popular.

Oh, and if you get pregnant and you're 17 or younger, you WILL need your parents' permission to get an abortion. In fact, depending on the doctor you go to to get advice about your situation, they just might call your parents. And the bill might well be sent to your parents instead of you.

Also, Medicaid doesn't cover abortions in Utah. So if you're poor in Utah and you need an abortion for, say, an ectopic pregnancy, you're shit out of luck. It's an out-of-pocket expense.

Welcome to the world of The Handmaid's Tale.

From:

Well, to be fair, Abstinence is the only completely effective protection against unplanned pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. (When you catch them sexually and not, say, from contaminated blood or needles or whatever.) And, being a religious conservative myself, I would say that abstinence is to be preferred to sex outside of a committed, mutually exclusive relationship such as marriage. (And that same standard applies to both men and women.) But, erm, if there's ever been a time in the history of the world to date when that ideal has been followed by everyone, I don't know when it was. (There have been times when it's been more the norm than it is today, of course. But even then you had affairs behind closed doors.) I am against abortion in most cases ... which is why I think contraception should be taught and easily available. Because if it's used responsibly, that eliminates the vast majority of the "use abortion after instead of birth control before" which is the worst abuse of abortions and my main objection to them. That's leaving aside the whole STD situation, particularly AIDS. You want to talk about criminally reckless behavior, I think we should start with people who tell kids that safe sex is bad and condoms are evil and charge them with criminally negligent homicide every time one of the kids they teach is infected with AIDS.

As to the law in question, I'm a political conservative of the sort who believes that governments are by nature callous and incompetent and prone to abuse, which means we should limit their power any place we can, particularly places that are most vulnerable to abuse. And this? This is about as prone to abuse as I can imagine without crossing the line into being actively abusive.

From:

I don't actually have a problem with abstinence, provided that it's taught as an option to boys as well as girls. I just object when it's taught as the ONLY option, because that ignores the fact that some teenagers are having sex, and they're not necessarily going to stop just because a teacher says that they should be chaste. So I guess we agree on that score.

I am against abortion in most cases ... which is why I think contraception should be taught and easily available.

I'd agree with that, too.

You want to talk about criminally reckless behavior, I think we should start with people who tell kids that safe sex is bad and condoms are evil and charge them with criminally negligent homicide every time one of the kids they teach is infected with AIDS.

The staff and administration of my entire high school would have been charged. That's a NICE picture.

I'm a political conservative of the sort who believes that governments are by nature callous and incompetent and prone to abuse, which means we should limit their power any place we can, particularly places that are most vulnerable to abuse

*laughs* I feel the exact same way. Always have. At the same time, I'm socially liberal.

From:

There's a difference between being politically conservative and socially conservative. I am socially a liberal, but very conservative politically and financially, and a moderate when it comes to religion. I am a Republican in large part because while both parties are too big-government for me to be comfortable with, the Democrats are far more likely to "solve" problems--particularly social problems!--by adding more government control and oversight. So even when I agree with them on what the problems are, I vehemently disagree with their approach to solving them. There are more Republicans like me than most people realize, but we're not the ones who get the media attention. (Because, by and large, the nutcases in the Republican Party tend to gravitate towards the extreme ends, like all nutcases do, and the nutcases are more entertaining on the 6 o'clock news.)

From:

This is actually why I registered Republican in the first place- the get the frak out of my life aspect. I keep meaning to change my party affiliation to Libertarian, and just haven't done it yet. (There's also the attraction of being able to vote in primaries.)

If Arnie Vinnick from The West Wing was real, I totally would have voted for him.

From:

*shrug* Fundamentally, I don't trust politicians. I haven't actually noticed that the party they belong to makes any difference.

Also, I don't oppose a great many social programs--Medicare, for example, or HUD grants for the poor--because, in many ways, my life is dependent on such programs. I would have no money to live on and no way to pay my bills if it were not for Social Security disability. I would not be able to afford the treatment I need for a progressive and crippling congenital disease which has no cure. I would not be able to get the cataract operation that I'll need in a year or so if Medicare did not pay for it. If it were not for the supplemental insurance that my state mandates I have to be on their prescription drug program, I would not be able to obtain the durable medical equipment I need to stay alive, nor would I be able to get it repaired and replaced. The equipment in question lasts anywhere from five months to two years. It costs at least 20,000 dollars at a time, brand new. There is no way in Hell that I could pay for this.

To me, social programs are...well...life support. Literally.

Also, I don't find the nutjobs entertaining. They have a frightening habit of getting their own way, no matter how damaging that is to others. I find them, in the words of Mal Reynolds, "creepifying."

P.S. I'm not mad at you, or upset with anything you're saying. I just feel very strongly about social programs, because for me, their importance is so vital. I apologize if I upset you.

Edited Date: 2010-02-26 09:35 pm (UTC)

From:

You did not upset or offend me; I quite understand. It's just that health care in general is such a huge topic, and I generally don't like discussing politics for a variety of reasons.

(Basically, I think the health care system in the US is broken, and I don't trust the government to fix it. I certainly don't trust the government to run it, having been watching the various debacles they've had with the military/veterans medical care/hospital systems over the last ten years.)

From:

It is broken, no question about that. And I have a friend who's a veteran who has been getting abysmal treatment from the VA since she came back from Iraq, so I agree with you about veterans' care being a debacle. It shouldn't be, but it is.

From:

prophetkristy.livejournal.com

WTF. Srsly, WTF

After I just got done telling two separate classes that chromosomal problems cause more miscarriages that we will ever know about!!!

*wants to throw things*

From:

I'll throw with you. I mean, granted, they're not prosecuting EVERY miscarriage, but it's a really, REALLY slippery slope.

From:

The worst thing is that the governor of Utah doesn't even have to sign this thing for it to become law. Look at this portion from the end of the bill:

Section 10. Effective date.
If approved by two-thirds of all the members elected to each house, this bill takes effect upon approval by the governor, or the day following the constitutional time limit of Utah Constitution Article VII, Section 8, without the governor's signature, or in the case of a veto, the date of veto override.

So basically, he's got to come out against it openly by vetoing it. And I'm thinking...in UTAH? The state owned by the ultra-conservative Mormon Church. Yeah. Not going to happen.

From:

rinelk.livejournal.com

I assume that Utah has a veto override clause similar to the federal government's, such that a 2/3 majority can make the veto irrelevant. So this just seems like it speeds up that process by not requiring the legislature to call a second vote.

Oh, and any legislator who votes for a deliberately unclear law, thereby shifting the burden of defining what counts as a violation of that law to the judicial system, loses his (I'd say "or her", but I'm guessing the votes on this one are coming largely from men) right to complain about judges legislating from the bench EVER AGAIN.

From:

Largely, but I think there were some women voting for it, too. I'm not positive on that one, but seem to remember reading it.

From:

The Senate Sponsor is one Margaret Dayton...a Republican whose husband is an ob/gyn. She also opposes standardized education (which most of the Western world has)and the International Baccalaureate Program, believes in a literal reading of the Constitution (in other words, just toss out all those pesky judicial interpretations that have granted people rights!), and is convinced that the traditional family is necessary for American society to continue to exist. Because, y'know, people like me, who were raised by two women and a man (my mother, her sister and her father) are INCAPABLE of supporting society.

The Chief Sponsor of the bill in the House is Carl Wimmer, who apparently has been photographed giving a speech at a conference of a guy charged with running a 100 million dollar Ponzi scheme. (Did you know that Utah is the fraud capital of the country?) Another Republican, by the way.

The Co-Sponsors are:

Johnny Anderson (Republican)
Craig A. Frank (Republican)
Kerry W. Gibson (Republican...and male, despite the name)
Keith Grover (Republican)
Christopher N. Herrod (Republican)
Gregory H. Hughes (Republican)
Rebecca D. Lockhart(Republican, and Asst. Majority Whip)
<ahref="http://www.le.state.ut.us/house/members/bios.asp?id=66">Michael T. Morley (Republican)
Curtis Oda (Republican)
Kenneth W. Sumsion (Republican)

So...yeah. It's mostly men, but given Dayton's and Lockhart's willing and active participation, it's clearly not something we can blame solely on men.

Edited Date: 2010-02-26 01:16 pm (UTC)

From:

Two things.

1) I love your icon, particularly in this context.

2) I'm a Republican. But, just as there are many different types of Democrats, there are many different types of Republicans. And I can say that both Republicans and Democrats from Utah are not like their colleagues from anywhere else. Particularly not those colleagues on the West Coast, which is where I'm from. So please, do not use this asshattery as justification for the "Republicans are EVIL!" rhetoric that floats around the internet in many places. Alas, asshattery is endemic to the human condition. I have never met any group (gender, sex, religion, class, race, political party, religion, ethnicity, region, etc.) that could claim immunity. They just have different kinds. (The West Coast of America tends to the liberal nutcases. The East Coast of America tends to the conservative nutcases. The middle of the country tends to the religious nutcases.)

From:

From what I've heard, Utah is heavily Republican, so it really isn't strange that everyone supporting that bill is Republican. I've also heard that Utah's legislature tends toward nuttiness in general. For example, state senator Mark Madsen wanted to create a holiday honoring the founder of the Browning Arms company...on Martin Luther King Day. Another state senator, Chris Butters, wants to abolish twelfth grade from Utah high schools in order to save money. And then there was Representative Craig Frank, who last year wanted to tax anything containing caffeine...which, basically, would have been a special tax on non-Mormon people, since Mormons are forbidden to consume coffee or tea, and some have extended that ban to any caffeinated beverage.

But you're right. I was looking at their fake smiles and their voting records and thinking "Republican neocons." (I'm sure that there are Democratic neocons, but I've never heard of them.)

And that's the problem, really. I know that Republicans come in all shapes and sizes, but of late, the more vociferously conservative and the most zealously religious among them seem to be neocons. And the neocons scare the life out of me, because a) what they want is diametrically opposed to everything I believe and cherish and b) they have a frightening knack for getting what they want.

And what neocons seem to want is to smash everyone's rights but theirs and crush the people they don't like. Which seems to be everyone who isn't them.

So--you're half right. I don't think that Republicans are evil. I don't think that conservatives are evil. But I do think that neocons--the infuriated, the overzealous, the morally outraged by the modern world--definitely are.

From:

Not sure how relevant this is to the discussion, but the vote was 24-4, meaning three of the votes in favor were Democrats. I guess I'm in the camp of it's a bad policy, no matter who voted for it.

From: