In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
GA bill to criminalize miscarriages?
KSUmarksman
Member Posts: 10,705 ✭✭✭
saw this on a friend's facebook...I know it has a snowball's chance in hell of passing, but is this representative a COMPLETE MORON?
ONE: how do you prove beyond a doubt that there was no human cause in the miscarriage?
TWO: who the hell is representative dumbbleen to shift the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused? Comrade Stalin??? (from the part that says "women who miscarry could become felons if they cannot prove that there was "no human involvement whatsoever in the causation" of their miscarriage. "
Ga. Law Could Give Death Penalty for Miscarriages
- By Jen Phillips
| Wed Feb. 23, 2011 4:32 AM PST
It's only February, but this year has been a tough one for women's health and reproductive rights. There's a new bill on the block that may have reached the apex (I hope) of woman-hating craziness. Georgia State Rep. Bobby Franklin-who last year proposed making rape and domestic violence "victims" into "accusers"-has introduced a 10-page bill that would criminalize miscarriages and make abortion in Georgia completely illegal. Both miscarriages and abortions would be potentially punishable by death: any "prenatal murder" in the words of the bill, including "human involvement" in a miscarriage, would be a felony and carry a penalty of life in prison or death. Basically, it's everything an "pro-life" activist could want aside from making all women who've had abortions wear big red "A"s on their chests.
I doubt that a bill that makes a legal medical procedure liable for the death penalty will pass. The bill, however, shows an astonishing lack of concern for women's health and well-being. Under Rep. Franklin's bill, HB 1, women who miscarry could become felons if they cannot prove that there was "no human involvement whatsoever in the causation" of their miscarriage. There is no clarification of what "human involvement" means, and this is hugely problematic as medical doctors do not know exactly what causes miscarriages. Miscarriages are estimated to terminate up to a quarter of all pregnancies and the Mayo Clinic says that "the actual number is probably much higher because many miscarriages occur so early in pregnancy that a woman doesn't even know she's pregnant. Most miscarriages occur because the fetus isn't developing normally."
Holding women criminally liable for a totally natural, common biological process is cruel and non-sensical. Even more ridiculous, the bill holds women responsible for protecting their fetuses from "the moment of conception," despite the fact that pregnancy tests aren't accurate until at least 3 weeks after conception. Unless Franklin (who is not a health professional) invents a revolutionary intrauterine conception alarm system, it's unclear how exactly the state of Georgia would enforce that rule other than holding all possibly-pregnant women under lock and key.
I've seen a lot of anti-woman, hate-filled bills this year, but this one takes the cake. And it's not just anti-woman, it's anti-logic. The bill contends that Georgia is exempt from upholding Supreme Court decisions like Roe v. Wade because the Constitution's Article I only governs five crimes: counterfeiting, piracy, high seas felonies, offenses against the law of nations, and treason. According to the bill, since murder is not one of those five crimes, it should be solely governed by the state. The bill also mandates that doctors must try to save the mother and the fetus, even though as we know, there are many situations in which both cannot be saved. It also changes medical terminology, re-designating all zygotes, embryos, and concepti as fetuses. In the bill's logic, a fertilized egg is the same as a person, and its destruction is murder. Sometimes even a fertilized egg will fail to adhere to the uterine lining, so would that make a uterus a murderer? At least the bill doesn't propose instituting pro-life Stork Bucks or outlawing "space abortions"...yet.
ONE: how do you prove beyond a doubt that there was no human cause in the miscarriage?
TWO: who the hell is representative dumbbleen to shift the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused? Comrade Stalin??? (from the part that says "women who miscarry could become felons if they cannot prove that there was "no human involvement whatsoever in the causation" of their miscarriage. "
Ga. Law Could Give Death Penalty for Miscarriages
- By Jen Phillips
| Wed Feb. 23, 2011 4:32 AM PST
It's only February, but this year has been a tough one for women's health and reproductive rights. There's a new bill on the block that may have reached the apex (I hope) of woman-hating craziness. Georgia State Rep. Bobby Franklin-who last year proposed making rape and domestic violence "victims" into "accusers"-has introduced a 10-page bill that would criminalize miscarriages and make abortion in Georgia completely illegal. Both miscarriages and abortions would be potentially punishable by death: any "prenatal murder" in the words of the bill, including "human involvement" in a miscarriage, would be a felony and carry a penalty of life in prison or death. Basically, it's everything an "pro-life" activist could want aside from making all women who've had abortions wear big red "A"s on their chests.
I doubt that a bill that makes a legal medical procedure liable for the death penalty will pass. The bill, however, shows an astonishing lack of concern for women's health and well-being. Under Rep. Franklin's bill, HB 1, women who miscarry could become felons if they cannot prove that there was "no human involvement whatsoever in the causation" of their miscarriage. There is no clarification of what "human involvement" means, and this is hugely problematic as medical doctors do not know exactly what causes miscarriages. Miscarriages are estimated to terminate up to a quarter of all pregnancies and the Mayo Clinic says that "the actual number is probably much higher because many miscarriages occur so early in pregnancy that a woman doesn't even know she's pregnant. Most miscarriages occur because the fetus isn't developing normally."
Holding women criminally liable for a totally natural, common biological process is cruel and non-sensical. Even more ridiculous, the bill holds women responsible for protecting their fetuses from "the moment of conception," despite the fact that pregnancy tests aren't accurate until at least 3 weeks after conception. Unless Franklin (who is not a health professional) invents a revolutionary intrauterine conception alarm system, it's unclear how exactly the state of Georgia would enforce that rule other than holding all possibly-pregnant women under lock and key.
I've seen a lot of anti-woman, hate-filled bills this year, but this one takes the cake. And it's not just anti-woman, it's anti-logic. The bill contends that Georgia is exempt from upholding Supreme Court decisions like Roe v. Wade because the Constitution's Article I only governs five crimes: counterfeiting, piracy, high seas felonies, offenses against the law of nations, and treason. According to the bill, since murder is not one of those five crimes, it should be solely governed by the state. The bill also mandates that doctors must try to save the mother and the fetus, even though as we know, there are many situations in which both cannot be saved. It also changes medical terminology, re-designating all zygotes, embryos, and concepti as fetuses. In the bill's logic, a fertilized egg is the same as a person, and its destruction is murder. Sometimes even a fertilized egg will fail to adhere to the uterine lining, so would that make a uterus a murderer? At least the bill doesn't propose instituting pro-life Stork Bucks or outlawing "space abortions"...yet.
Comments
Who votes for these people anyways?
He also introduced a bill to require State taxes to be paid in gold and silver coin .
'Prenatal murder' means the intentional removal of a fetus from a woman with an intention other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead fetus; provided, however, that if a physician makes a medically justified effort to save the lives of both the mother and the fetus and the fetus does not survive, such action shall not be prenatal murder. Such term does not include a naturally occurring expulsion of a fetus known medically as a 'spontaneous abortion' and popularly as a 'miscarriage' so long as there is no human involvement whatsoever in the causation of such event.
(c) The act of prenatal murder is contrary to the health and well-being of the citizens of this state and to the state itself and is illegal in this state in all instances.
(d) Any person committing prenatal murder in this state shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, shall be punished as provided in subsection (d) of Code Section 16-5-1.
And here's a link to the entire bill:
http://www1.legis.ga.gov/legis/2009_10/search/hb1.htm
Regarding miscarriage, the bill states a natural occurring miscarriage is not legislated against however a cause miscarriage is legislated against. For example, if the pregnant wife is driving along and suffers a miscarriage - that can not be prosecuted. If hubby or boyfriend push her down a set of stairs or kick her in the stomach and a miscarriage occurs - that can be prosecuted.
An issue is the "so long as there is no human involvement whatsoever in the causation of such event" language. If a woman has too much to drink and drives and has an accident or falls down the steps and a miscarriage occurs is that causation?
Neither the Georgia Rep nor the writer of the article is exactly middle of the road on the issue - each has their point to push, he does it in the legislature and she does it in Mother Jones.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
that's my primary concern right there, human causation is up to interpretation...
I would not doubt if this passed that some crusader DA would eventually consider a woman at fault for not taking even mundane risks out of her life (such as driving on the interstate or continuing to work (thus increasing day-to-day stress, which could conceivably cause miscarriage))
I know its a stretch, but I am just trying to think like politicians and/or lawyers (aka snakes and weasels [;)]) to preview the worst possible outcomes
quote:An issue is the "so long as there is no human involvement whatsoever in the causation of such event" language. If a woman has too much to drink and drives and has an accident or falls down the steps and a miscarriage occurs is that causation?
that's my primary concern right there, human causation is up to interpretation...
I would not doubt if this passed that some crusader DA would eventually consider a woman at fault for not taking even mundane risks out of her life (such as driving on the interstate or continuing to work (thus increasing day-to-day stress, which could conceivably cause miscarriage))
I know its a stretch, but I am just trying to think like politicians and/or lawyers (aka snakes and weasels [;)]) to preview the worst possible outcomes
That's a good approach - a law ought to be judged not only on the good it can do but how it may be misused. How about hubby screams and yells at pregnant wife and a miscarriage occurs? Or, PO'd pregnant and soon to be exwife asserts hubby yelled at her and that caused the miscarriage - another little drama to add to divorce court?
quote:It's only February, but this year has been a tough one for women's health and reproductive rights. There's a new bill on the block that may have reached the apex (I hope) of woman-hating craziness. Georgia State Rep. Bobby Franklin-who last year proposed making rape and domestic violence "victims" into "accusers"-has introduced a 10-page bill that would criminalize miscarriages and make abortion in Georgia completely illegal. Both miscarriages and abortions would be potentially punishable by death: any "prenatal murder" in the words of the bill, including "human involvement" in a miscarriage, would be a felony and carry a penalty of life in prison or death. Basically, it's everything an "pro-life" activist could want aside from making all women who've had abortions wear big red "A"s on their chests.
No pro-life advocate would want the death penalty for a woman who was grieving a miscarriage.
i cant wait for the time when abortion is a non issue. its going to be awhile, but i hope it happens in my life time....
I couldn't agree more.
Its a medical fact that miscarriages happen for reasons that can not be explained. Millions of things come together at the same time and if one thing is not exactly right there is a miscarriage. It happens a lot, most of the time the woman doesn't even know.
Now if it was caused by someone hitting stabbing or shooting a pregnant woman or something else that physically caused a miscarriage I am all for sending them to ride the lightning.
i cant wait for the time when abortion is a non issue. its going to be awhile, but i hope it happens in my life time....
It will never happen.
Both sides are much too heavily invested in the political, moral, and legal dimensions to give up.
OK then, this guy wants to call my wife a felon, I don't think that the word moron is strong enough for this guy, but a word strong enough would get this post poofed. My wife and I have lost 2 children to miscarrage and a third to a rare heart defect, we feel blessed everyday due to our two young and healthy daughters. My wife has never drank, never smoked and all of her pregnanceis were planned with the taking of prenatiles before conception. To try to blame a woman for a miscarrage is absolutly abserd
Who votes for these people anyways?Who votes for them? Why the same ones who voted for the Tea Party, McShame and his bimbo, Palin, etc.
What is truly scary is they live amomgst us and they breed![;)][;)]
i cant wait for the time when abortion is a non issue. its going to be awhile, but i hope it happens in my life time....
At the current rate of 1.2 children per couple (white middle class) and 2.1-2,2 being just sustainable; in a hundred years certain demographics will non breed themselves right out of existence. Or in other terms 60,000 plus generations (since the last major extinction event) of genetic selection comes to an abrupt halt. Watch the movie Indocracy.
Somewhere around 1970 sex turned into recreation, instead of pro creation.
I'm for planned parenthood, but is failure to take precautions and having an abortion every time you have a oopsy really the answer?
I think of the gene pool as being a pool of potential and more and more immature females are making selfish choices that may have long term consequences for much of the human race.
Besides the inequities of the whole situation, the females (often immature) make all the choices.
quote:Originally posted by KEVD18
i cant wait for the time when abortion is a non issue. its going to be awhile, but i hope it happens in my life time....
It will never happen.
Both sides are much too heavily invested in the political, moral, and legal dimensions to give up.
i disagree. look at all the huge changes we've made to our society. things that were every bit as dividing as abortion, if not more. blacks. first they were slaves, then "free" but nowhere near accepted, yada yada yada up to now when, despite the grumblings of some stuck in a past time, a black man is the equal of a white man. same jobs, same money etc. how about the same paradigm with women.
there will be a time when abortion is a non issue. the people that are for it will practice it when necessary; and the people against it will hate them in the background, but legally speaking the issue will have been solved.
quote:Originally posted by nemesisenforcer
quote:Originally posted by KEVD18
i cant wait for the time when abortion is a non issue. its going to be awhile, but i hope it happens in my life time....
It will never happen.
Both sides are much too heavily invested in the political, moral, and legal dimensions to give up.
i disagree. look at all the huge changes we've made to our society. things that were every bit as dividing as abortion, if not more. blacks. first they were slaves, then "free" but nowhere near accepted, yada yada yada up to now when, despite the grumblings of some stuck in a past time, a black man is the equal of a white man. same jobs, same money etc. how about the same paradigm with women.
there will be a time when abortion is a non issue. the people that are for it will practice it when necessary; and the people against it will hate them in the background, but legally speaking the issue will have been solved.
The next dynamic to the abortion issue, is why should the females have all the choices? I'm not buying off on the statement, it is my body and can do whatever I want with it. The genetic material she is carrying belongs to her ancestors, her mate and in the larger picture, society as a whole.
You speak of all the changes and progress we have made, I equate changes in society like changes in the ecosystem. Man makes a choice that one plant is superior to another, manipulates the order and the consequences are often surprising and come from directions that were totally unanticipated. Any change has unforeseen consequences, progress (change) may not be progress but catastrophe in disguise.
saw this on a friend's facebook...I know it has a snowball's chance in hell of passing, but is this representative a COMPLETE MORON?
ONE: how do you prove beyond a doubt that there was no human cause in the miscarriage?
TWO: who the hell is representative dumbbleen to shift the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused? Comrade Stalin??? (from the part that says "women who miscarry could become felons if they cannot prove that there was "no human involvement whatsoever in the causation" of their miscarriage. "
Except the bill doesn't do that.
They would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone intentionally (or through criminal negligence) caused the miscarriage.
People try to make this a women's rights issue, when it isn't.
It is a simple biological fact that at certain points, women are responsible for 2 lives, not one.
It is not a woman's right to kill a child any more than a man can kill his child.
The only valid issue from my point of view is when the thing growing inside the woman meets the criteria for "personhood".
A single unfertilized egg is not a person.
What about a fertilized egg? Its a human cell with the right chromosome number, yes...
But so is any skin cell, and if you play a joke and cause someone to scrape their skin, we don't call it murder.
Sure, but the egg can keep growing- so can a tumor - I kept human tumor cells in culture flasks in the lab, doesn't mean it was murder when I discarded a flask.
But that egg can develop into a person... if science advances enough to allow us to do the same with adult cells, what then?
It *can* develop into a person, it hasn't yet. A sperm an an egg can as well, but its not like every women commits murder by not getting pregnant before her next period, even though the objects were there that could grow into a person.
What about the 16 cell spherical blastocyst
What about:
An embryo?
A 12 week old fetus?
A 36 week old fetus?
Where do you draw the line?
I think it needs to be decided what qualities establish "personhood", and then leave it to science to determine what biological features are needed, and at what age they develop.
Intentionally causing a miscarriage of a 36 week old fetus is the same as criminal child neglect/abuse/murder of a newborn in my opinion.
Banning women from taking the "morning after pill", or terminating the pregnancy at the embryo phase seems to me like simply banning a medical procedure withou due cause.
It has nothing to do with a women's right to privacy, as previous courts have (ridiculously) ruled. Making it illegal for a doctor (or anyone else) to perform a procedure is not an invasion of privacy.
Having Gynecological/medical exam reports sent to the government, to catch those breaking the law, would be an invasion of privacy.
I don't consider an embryo a person.
When it becomes a fetus, its less clear, and arguing about women's rights seems to argue it is a women's right to kill another human if she is inconvenienced.
quote:Originally posted by KSUmarksman
saw this on a friend's facebook...I know it has a snowball's chance in hell of passing, but is this representative a COMPLETE MORON?
ONE: how do you prove beyond a doubt that there was no human cause in the miscarriage?
TWO: who the hell is representative dumbbleen to shift the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused? Comrade Stalin??? (from the part that says "women who miscarry could become felons if they cannot prove that there was "no human involvement whatsoever in the causation" of their miscarriage. "
Except the bill doesn't do that.
They would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone intentionally (or through criminal negligence) caused the miscarriage.
People try to make this a women's rights issue, when it isn't.
It is a simple biological fact that at certain points, women are responsible for 2 lives, not one.
It is not a woman's right to kill a child any more than a man can kill his child.
The only valid issue from my point of view is when the thing growing inside the woman meets the criteria for "personhood".
A single unfertilized egg is not a person.
What about a fertilized egg? Its a human cell with the right chromosome number, yes...
But so is any skin cell, and if you play a joke and cause someone to scrape their skin, we don't call it murder.
Sure, but the egg can keep growing- so can a tumor - I kept human tumor cells in culture flasks in the lab, doesn't mean it was murder when I discarded a flask.
But that egg can develop into a person... if science advances enough to allow us to do the same with adult cells, what then?
It *can* develop into a person, it hasn't yet. A sperm an an egg can as well, but its not like every women commits murder by not getting pregnant before her next period, even though the objects were there that could grow into a person.
What about the 16 cell spherical blastocyst
What about:
An embryo?
A 12 week old fetus?
A 36 week old fetus?
Where do you draw the line?
I think it needs to be decided what qualities establish "personhood", and then leave it to science to determine what biological features are needed, and at what age they develop.
Intentionally causing a miscarriage of a 36 week old fetus is the same as criminal child neglect/abuse/murder of a newborn in my opinion.
Banning women from taking the "morning after pill", or terminating the pregnancy at the embryo phase seems to me like simply banning a medical procedure withou due cause.
It has nothing to do with a women's right to privacy, as previous courts have (ridiculously) ruled. Making it illegal for a doctor (or anyone else) to perform a procedure is not an invasion of privacy.
Having Gynecological/medical exam reports sent to the government, to catch those breaking the law, would be an invasion of privacy.
I don't consider an embryo a person.
When it becomes a fetus, its less clear, and arguing about women's rights seems to argue it is a women's right to kill another human if she is inconvenienced.
Discarding (aborting) a thousand generations on a whim isn't the way humans got to be humans. Being able to choose to carry to term or not, irrelevant of the age of the union, isn't how we got where we are.
You have an obviously successful reproductive process that goes back a very long time, now all of a sudden the rules have changed.
The front brain is likely the reason people are people, the front brain may also screw up a tried and proven success story.
People are being really arrogant thinking their momentary (short term) decisions are always or even occasionally beneficial for mankind as a whole.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
I notice that all of the people who advocate for abortion have already been born.
So have all of the people who advocate for the 2nd Amendment.
And the Infield Fly Rule.
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
I notice that all of the people who advocate for abortion have already been born.
So have all of the people who advocate for the 2nd Amendment.
And the Infield Fly Rule.
Relevance?
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by Colonel Plink
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
I notice that all of the people who advocate for abortion have already been born.
So have all of the people who advocate for the 2nd Amendment.
And the Infield Fly Rule.
Relevance?
Exactly.
quote:Originally posted by CA sucks
quote:Originally posted by KSUmarksman
saw this on a friend's facebook...I know it has a snowball's chance in hell of passing, but is this representative a COMPLETE MORON?
ONE: how do you prove beyond a doubt that there was no human cause in the miscarriage?
TWO: who the hell is representative dumbbleen to shift the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused? Comrade Stalin??? (from the part that says "women who miscarry could become felons if they cannot prove that there was "no human involvement whatsoever in the causation" of their miscarriage. "
Except the bill doesn't do that.
They would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone intentionally (or through criminal negligence) caused the miscarriage.
People try to make this a women's rights issue, when it isn't.
It is a simple biological fact that at certain points, women are responsible for 2 lives, not one.
It is not a woman's right to kill a child any more than a man can kill his child.
The only valid issue from my point of view is when the thing growing inside the woman meets the criteria for "personhood".
A single unfertilized egg is not a person.
What about a fertilized egg? Its a human cell with the right chromosome number, yes...
But so is any skin cell, and if you play a joke and cause someone to scrape their skin, we don't call it murder.
Sure, but the egg can keep growing- so can a tumor - I kept human tumor cells in culture flasks in the lab, doesn't mean it was murder when I discarded a flask.
But that egg can develop into a person... if science advances enough to allow us to do the same with adult cells, what then?
It *can* develop into a person, it hasn't yet. A sperm an an egg can as well, but its not like every women commits murder by not getting pregnant before her next period, even though the objects were there that could grow into a person.
What about the 16 cell spherical blastocyst
What about:
An embryo?
A 12 week old fetus?
A 36 week old fetus?
Where do you draw the line?
I think it needs to be decided what qualities establish "personhood", and then leave it to science to determine what biological features are needed, and at what age they develop.
Intentionally causing a miscarriage of a 36 week old fetus is the same as criminal child neglect/abuse/murder of a newborn in my opinion.
Banning women from taking the "morning after pill", or terminating the pregnancy at the embryo phase seems to me like simply banning a medical procedure withou due cause.
It has nothing to do with a women's right to privacy, as previous courts have (ridiculously) ruled. Making it illegal for a doctor (or anyone else) to perform a procedure is not an invasion of privacy.
Having Gynecological/medical exam reports sent to the government, to catch those breaking the law, would be an invasion of privacy.
I don't consider an embryo a person.
When it becomes a fetus, its less clear, and arguing about women's rights seems to argue it is a women's right to kill another human if she is inconvenienced.
Discarding (aborting) a thousand generations on a whim isn't the way humans got to be humans. Being able to choose to carry to term or not, irrelevant of the age of the union, isn't how we got where we are.
You have an obviously successful reproductive process that goes back a very long time, now all of a sudden the rules have changed.
The front brain is likely the reason people are people, the front brain may also screw up a tried and proven success story.
People are being really arrogant thinking their momentary (short term) decisions are always or even occasionally beneficial for mankind as a whole.
If people want to lower their "reproductive success", that is their problem, not yours
Point is, decisions have consequences, people can lower their reproductive success, but is it wise.
People talk about evolution, if you believe in that sort of thing, the evolutionary model until recently was a reproductive quotient that was fine tuned over thousands of years. You change the ingredients and you change the product, time will tell if it was a wise decision or not.
People do extensive studies about whether to build a dam because it may affect a tiny fish and more often than not get it wrong anyway.
I think the cause and effect of random birth control deserves at least as much study.
quote:Even if this bill had a chance of passing (which it doesn't) it would very quickly be ruled unconstitutional.
http://www.amplifyyourvoice.org/u/AFY_Will/2010/2/24/In-Utah-Miscarriage--Criminal-Homicide
This bill is not new...it took off in Utah last year..I remember reading about it a while back...classic and I discussed it as well...I know it passed the house, but havent heard if the governor signed it into law...I know revisions were talked about...