February 26, 2010

The Utah House and Senate have passed a bill that would allow homicide charges to be brought against pregnant women who arrange illegal abortions. The bill is in response to a woman in Vernal that allegedly paid a man $150 to beat her and cause her to miscarry, but she could not be charged. The bill criminalizes a woman's "intentional, knowing, or reckless act" leading to a pregnancy's illegal termination. The bill specifies that a woman cannot be prosecuted for arranging a legal abortion. The bill has been passed and now it goes to the governor to be signed.

Some Senate Democrats tried to add an amendment to the bill that would remove the word "reckless" from the bill. They argued that criminalizing "reckless acts" leaves open the possibility of prosecutions against domestic violence victims who return to their abusers, only to be beaten and lose the child. But the amendment was not accepted. The sponsor of the bill said that the bill doesn't target victims -- only those that arrange to terminate their pregnancies illegally. (Full Story)

There are a lot of things wrong with this. To start, this law (assuming the governor signs it) seems kind of impractical. It doesn't seem like it will be even be enforced much. How are the authorities even going to be aware when a miscarriage occurs? Furthermore, how will they know it occurred due to an "intentional, knowing, or reckless act"? So while I don't think it's actually going to be enforced much, I don't like the language of the law or even knowing that this law is on the books to potentially be enforced in a pinch to use against someone.

I also don't like this inclusion of "reckless acts". That seems too vague and broad. What will be defined as reckless? The other two words "intentional" and "knowing" indicate that someone was purposely trying to miscarry, whereas "reckless" doesn't fit with the others. If someone was being "reckless" and they end up miscarrying, that doesn't necessarily mean they intended to miscarry. (And that's not to say that someone that intentionally miscarries is justified in being charged with homicide). The Democratic senators were concerned about this language because of domestic violence victims, but I've also heard that critics of the bill are worried about pregnant women that don't wear a seatbelt, or smoke, or drink while pregnant. Yes, there are medical recommendations that people do not smoke or drink during pregnancy because it can harm the fetus; but as is, it's not illegal. Under this Utah law, a woman could be charged with homicide for not wearing a seatbelt or drinking while pregnant, and as a result she miscarries. It just seems like a slippery slope in terms of what will be considered "reckless acts". Could not eating a proper diet while pregnant be considered reckless? Granted, as I mentioned before, I don't think the law will be enforced much. For example, if someone gets in a car accident, doesn't wear a seatbelt, and then miscarries, I doubt she's going to be arrested and charged with homicide. Both because 1) Who would know she miscarried? That's such a personal thing and most people don't announce it to the authorities (though those Utahns are known for getting up in people's personal business... Haha) and 2) Who really is going to prosecute that? But the fact that it is a law and could be done is ridiculous.

Another problem I have with the law is that it's one of those tricky, sneaky attempts to define when life begins. They are counting a fetus as a human life -- one that is considered "murdered" and warrants a charge of homicide. Just like in states where when someone kills a pregnant woman, they're charged with two counts of homicide. So while Utah cannot possibly get away with charging women with homicide that get legal, medical abortions, I can't help but feel they're trying to send a message that they consider any intentional miscarriage (i.e., abortion) as murder.

I agree that it's terrible that a woman would resort to paying someone to beat her up so that she would miscarry. This is what happened before Roe v. Wade and abortion was made legal. This shouldn't be happening today. However, Utah is looking at it all wrong. If you want to stop this type of behavior, don't try to punish the mother, try to help her. Utah should be working on providing women better opportunities to have a safe, medical abortion. Obviously that woman that paid someone $150 to beat her up did not feel that a medical abortion was an option for her. You would think someone would definitely prefer a safe, medical procedure compared to being beat up. But for whatever reason, the woman didn't feel that was an option. Unfortunately, I doubt Utah will be encouraging or promoting opportunity for safe, medical abortions any time soon. As a result, you're going to continue to have people like this Vernal woman who feel like back-alley abortions are one of their only options, and then they could be prosecuted for homicide on top of that. Way to go, Utah.

---

The French parliament is debating legislation that would require men to wear an electronic bracelet (like a tracking device) if they have received a court order to stay away from their partner. If they break the order and approach their partner, police will be alerted. According to the government, approximately 160 women in France are murdered every year by their husbands or partners. Three women are killed by their partners every week, and this doesn't include those who are driven to suicide.

The proposal is part of a draft law on conjugal violence. It has cross-party support and is expected to pass easily. Parliament is also considering outlawing psychological violence in the home (see our entry on it here), which is seen by many as a precursor to physical violence. However, there is not as much support for this clause -- at least outside parliament. Many lawyers and professionals say it will be impossible to say at what point verbal abuse -- for instance in an argument -- becomes a criminal offense. (Full Story)

---

The International Narcotics Control Board, the U.N. drug control agency, reports that "date rape drugs" are on the rise. The board said that tough measures against the best-known drug, Rohypnol, have worked well -- however, as a result, sexual abusers are now turning to alternative substances which are subject to less stringent international controls. The board wants these drugs placed on governments' controlled substances lists and for manufacturers to develop safety features such as dyes or flavorings, so that the substance will be detected if slipped into someone's drink. I hope countries take this issue seriously. (Full Story)