Utah Reduces Women To Second Class
A new law in Utah not only criminalizes miscarriages but it has the overall effect of banning abortion altogether. For all intents and purposes, Utah runs as a religious state within the United States, and despite the hypocrisy of the self-appointed moral arbiters (see tub, hot and clandestine payoffs) on the right the last time I checked this was still America.
(via S.M.)
31 Responses to “Utah Reduces Women To Second Class”
Contact
Email: owillis@gmail.com
Twitter: @owillis
Facebook
Flickr
AIM: oliverwill
Google Reader Shared Items
Huffington Post Columns
Media Matters Blog Entries
Must Reads
Why Didn’t Obama’s DOJ Go After The New Black Panther Party For Voter Intimidation?
History: Democrats & Republicans On Civil Rights & Equality
Latest Entries
VIDEO: Epic David Vitter Prostitution Documentary Vid
Did Chris Christie Lie About What He Knew When He Attacked Obama? Sounds Like It
VIDEO: Jan Brewer’s Debate Fail
Overwhelming Majority Still Blame Bush For Economic Problems
AUDIO: Tea Party Senate Candidate Christine O’Donnell Has Epic Radio Fail
The Crisis Of Overmedicated Children
James Lee: Hostage Situation At Discovery Building In Silver Spring, MD
“Obamacare Worked Today”
Superman/Batman #75 By Frank Quitely
Glenn Beck Lied About Holding Washington’s Inaugural Address
Meta
Recent Comments
SpiderJ: Come on, Pryme, he’s the perfect GOP candidate. Christopher Christie! He’s Christ Twice! If...
jr: Going to hookers is “boys being boys” to LA Republicans
hnice: “Farris, how can it possibly be true that Obama would be trailing someone liberals seem certain was the...
Wilbur: Word’s clearly gone out from teabag central: when you’ve got no brain just yell your talking...
SaveFarris: If McCain can’t get that uppity n**g*r out of office come November Bush will! You betcha! The Hate is...
Breaking News
Timothy Wayne Hammerstone: Disney Worker Arrested For Child Porn On Xbox
Clay Sannar: Mormon Bishop Shot & Killed
Shooting Spree In Slovakia Capital Kills Six
Lindsay Lohan Stopped By Cops In LA
Yvonne Strahovski at 8th Annual BAFTA/LA TV Tea Party
Possible E. Coli Beef Recalled From BJ’s Wholesale
VIDEO: Britney Spears “Radiance” Commercial
Ryan Reynolds, Bradley Cooper To Star In Action Comedy
Rumor: Cisco Offers To Buy Skype
Retargeting: Web Ads Stalk Users
Coverage
President Obama
2008 Election
John McCain
Humor
Iraq
George W. Bush
Health Care
Economy
NFL
Links
Fox News
Hillary Clinton
Race
Sarah Palin
Redskins
Newsweek
Tea Party
2006 Election
Racism
Oliver's World
Michael Steele
Maryland
History
Religious Right
Conservative
Superman
Crime
Liberals
Women
Mitt Romney
Glenn Beck
Democratic Senate
Immigration
Liberal Media
Black Conservatives
Weird
Twitter
Rudy Giuliani
Global Warming
Abortion
Dick Cheney
Fred Thompson
Foreign Policy
Religion
Supreme Court
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
Blogroll
© 2000-2010 Oliver Willis
“I need to call a realtor”-Bart Stupak
Last time I checked America has become a Banana Republic with a third world health care system and medieval religious values.
I think you left off the word “intentional.” Intentional miscarriages are illegal. I know that you must have seen that when you read about the law, so I’m sure it was just an oversight in your description.
what a bunch of a-holes.
And you left out the word “reckless”. “Intentional, knowing, or reckless”. That’s a nice wildcard they put in there.
Did you miss what happened before the session? The Utah Senate Majority leader, Sheldon Killpack, was coming back from meeting lobbyists, drunk, and got busted by the highway patrol. When it came out, he resigned. So this session of the Utah legislature, marked by message bills, cuts in assistance to the disabled and aged, and flipping the bird at the feds like a bunch of snotty teenagers, was bookended by rethug ethics and morals scandals. When the pervert Garn confessed to his pecadillo with an underage girl in the Utah legislature, the rest of them stood up and applauded. They were probably thinking “at least it wasn’t a boy!” Of course in Utah IOKIYAR; if it had been a Democrat confessing, they would have thrown a rope over the bannister and lynched him on the spot.
OK, I’ll bite; What the fuck is an intentional miscarriage?
[...] Oliver Willis: A new law in Utah not only criminalizes miscarriages but it has the overall effect of banning abortion altogether. For all intents and purposes, Utah runs as a religious state within the United States, and despite the hypocrisy of the self-appointed moral arbiters (see tub, hot and clandestine payoffs) on the right the last time I checked this was still America. [...]
What the fuck is an intentional miscarriage?
Evidently a teenager hired somebody to beat her until she miscarried. That is to say, what you’d expect to happen when heavy anti-abortion laws are put in place, happened.
I usually try to stay polite with the sincerely religious, but seriously, fuck the people responsible for this.
I think you left of the word, “intentional.”
So what? There’s nothing in Oliver’s post that indicates that he believes miscarriages, whether of the “reckless” OR of the “intentional” variety, should be outlawed, you reading-comprehension-challenged idiot.
OK, I’ll bite; What the fuck is an intentional miscarriage?
A. An abortion.
Oh, and Parthenon? Some of us don’t belong to the school of thought that says that as soon as you make something illegal, people run out and do it. EVERYTHING isn’t Prohibition.
Frank, it’s not a school of thought – it’s a school of looking at the evidence before us. See Nicaragua, total abortion ban.
And comparing this to drinking? Real classy.
Frank: If all abortions were made illegal tomorrow, what, in your opinion, should be the criminal penalty for a woman who violates the law and conspires to and then participates in the aborting of her innocent, helpless unborn child?
For that matter, what criminal penalties would apply to any doctors who try to help her do it safely?
Hi Daniel…
It’s fairly obvious to most readers that the idea of a miscarriage being illegal is shocking, while the idea of deliberately killing your unborn baby by taking drugs, throwing yourself against a chair, or paying someone to punch you in the belly is much less shocking. Oliver’s choice of words is similar to reporting that someone was thrown in jail because their house burned down, when in fact they were thrown in jail for burning down their house.
Whether or not deliberately killing your unborn child should be illegal is certainly open to debate, surely the debate would be more honest if the law was described accurately in the first place.
Better late than never, I guess…Pandagon had this story a week ago.
And you’re reading Ms. magazine?
The only time I have received any sort of answer from a rabidly antichoice person was from my wife’s aunt, “Well, it would be quite a dilemma”. Dilemma? If these people are so fuckin convinced that any abortion is the “murder” of a helpless baby, then there would be no “dilemma” whatsoever. If they REALLY believed it was “murder”, then the answer would be simple: “Whatever that state’s penalty is for 1st degree murder”. If I took a rock and bashed in the skull of a 1 month-old infant in his mother’s arms, I’m pretty sure I know what they would answer. So why the uncertainty if the baby is on the inside of the mother’s uterus?
Some of us don’t belong to the school of thought that says that as soon as you make something illegal, people run out and do it.
Don’t suspect anyone does, Frank. My argument would be that people do certain things at close to the same frequency as before though they find alternate means of doing so. Alcohol consumption is one of those things, and abortion is another. As has been pointed out to you numerous times over the past several weeks, the numbers don’t bear you out re: self-induced abortion.
If all abortions were made illegal tomorrow, what, in your opinion, should be the criminal penalty for a woman who violates the law and conspires to and then participates in the aborting of her innocent, helpless unborn child?
I have answered this question before — in this blog — but I will answer it again.
1) The Doctor and the patient have two different roles in this.
2) The taking of a life is not always murder , even in the third, second, or first degree
3) An abortion can be manslaughter, or negligent homicide.
4) It would not be difficult to demonstrate the duress of the patient, if that were the case (I suppose a zealous prosecutor might be trying to demonstrate that the abortion was willful and cold blooded, but then again, maybe not)
5) There would be issues about how many babies – and / or abortions – she had had before
6) The Doctor, since he would not be the one having the baby, or the abortion, would have more trouble finding mitigating circumstances
7) Parenthetically, the Doctor would be fighting to keep his license
If you were expecting “hang ‘em both from the nearest lamppost”, I’m sorry to disappoint.
And Tim : I was making no such comparison, except in thinking. Parthenon answered me fairly, although inaccurately, IMHO.
I have made the point before that women showing up in ER’s bleeding from “coat hanger abortion” bordered on the mythical, and may never have occurred at all.
I have made the point before that women showing up in ER’s bleeding from “coat hanger abortion” bordered on the mythical, and may never have occurred at all.
You don’t have to be bleeding to die of a septic abortion:
Link
I have answered this question before — in this blog — but I will answer it again.
Frank, if your previous answers were anything like the one in this thread it’s pretty clear why people keep asking you the question: You didn’t actually provide an answer.
You presented a list of potentially mitigating circumstances in determining punishment but you you forgot to mention the actual punishment.
What, in your opinion, should be the punishment that is being mitigated? Jail time? A fine?
Some of us don’t belong to the school of thought that says that as soon as you make something illegal, people run out and do it.
You’re wrong on every count, Frank. How surprising.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html?_r=1
You answer it, Fafaroo… If it’s against the law, what should be done ?
Nothing?
What do you expect me to say?
Don’t the circumstances I presented to you suggest that there is no definite answer to the question?
If you are trying to “corner me” with some unpleasant answer, don’t even bother.
I’ll ask you the same question that I asked Zython, and he didn’t answer it, either: You see a car driving down the street. It screeches to a halt at a red light, and runs over the child. You don’t know whether the driver knew if he hit a child or not. What should the driver’s punishment be ?
Frank, I expected you to answer the question.
It isn’t enough to say, “Well, it depends on the circumstances.”
Yes, it does depend on the circumstances, but then you have to give clear cut guidelines for how to determine punishment based on the circumstances.
In your example of the car accident you are describing a case of manslaughter. What degree of manslaughter depends on the circumstances: involuntary, voluntary etc.
Once the degree of the crime is determined judges assign punishment within the sentencing guidelines provided for in the law. There are minimum and maximum sentences for various degrees of manslaughter which can differ from state to state or between state and federal courts.
http://www.ehow.com/way_5185339_involuntary-manslaughter-sentencing-guidelines.html
If you want an exact answer to your car accident question, here’s an outline of the sentencing guidelines in California (it’s going to differ from state to state):
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080129104829AARQrkr
With regards to abortion, all you’ve done is provide a list of mitigating circumstances, but you have not yet provided your favored sentencing guidelines.
Do you understand the difference now?
Frank, man…I don’t even know where to start. Or is that your intention? Way too many nonsequiturs in your response to even know where to begin. Maybe I’m too sober right now. I’m just trying to understand how anti-choice people can be so certain that abortion must be stopped because it’s “murder” (or “killing” as you called it in an earlier thread); but when it’s time to address specifics of what should be done in the event you all ever get your way and abortion is outlawed..then it’s a bunch of “Gee, that’s a tough one”, “Well, it all depends”, etc. A woman who seeks an abortion has one goal in mind: terminate her pregnancy. This means ending the functioning/life/whatever you want to call it, of the fetus. And, using the anti-choice crowds own definition, a fetus is the same as an already-born baby. If it’s “killing” as you have claimed, then it is an inescapable fact that she is INTENTIONALLY doing so. How in God’s name can you possibly claim that it might be, for example, “negligent”? And the thing about the guy hitting the kid with a car? Man, that just doesn’t begin to make sense in our current context.
OK, here goes:
1) I didn’t ask about the doctor. No answer so far.
2) I think it’s safe to say that most anti-choice people think an unborn fetus is exactly the same as an already-born baby, right? Same “value”, same rights, etc., right? In that case, if ending the life of an innocent, defenseless fetus/baby/child doesn’t rise to the level of murder, then what would?
3)How on earth could you argue that intentionally “killing” a child could possibly be merely “negligent”? (See #2)
4)Why would the “duress” of the patient matter? Aren’t we talking about “killing” a defenseless child? That’s namby-pamby bleeding-heart thinkin’
5)WAAAA?
6 and 7) Again, We’re not talking about the Dr. We’re talking about the woman’s culpability for orchestrating/soliciting/abetting the “killing” of an innocent child for the sole purpose of terminating an unwanted pregnancy. Why are you willing to consider letting her off easy for such a “killing”?
Again, I’m just trying to make sense of this from the standpoint of those who would claim, “Abortion is murder! (or killing), Stop the 2nd Holocaust! All life is sacred!” You can’t credibly claim that abortion is literally the murder/killing/whatever of innocent babies; then be so wishy-washy about the consequences of those who engage in it should it ever be criminalized.
I’ll ask you the same question that I asked Zython, and he didn’t answer it,
There’s a difference between “didn’t answer” and “I didn’t like the answer”, Frank.
As fafaroo said, it would go by the guidelines of punishment for manslaughter, specifically vehicular manslaughter.
Oh, and Parthenon? Some of us don’t belong to the school of thought that says that as soon as you make something illegal, people run out and do it. EVERYTHING isn’t Prohibition.
Frank, I may think you’re a tad slow, but I know you’re not THIS fucking stupid. The point is that women in general don’t take abortion lightly, and if they think they need it, they’re going to get it whether or not it’s legal. Of course, if it’s illegal, it will be alot more dangerous. Do you honestly believe that abortion didn’t exist before 1973?
I have answered this question before — in this blog — but I will answer it again.
Frank, in your worldview, how is abortion NOT synonymous with contract killing?
4) It would not be difficult to demonstrate the duress of the patient, if that were the case (I suppose a zealous prosecutor might be trying to demonstrate that the abortion was willful and cold blooded, but then again, maybe not)
So you’re arguing that women are stupid and don’t know what an abortion actually is?
If abortions are outlawed, only outlaws will have abortions.
Actually, Frank, I would have a hell of a lot more respect for the antichoicers’ arguments if they DID say, “Hang ‘em from the nearest lamp post”. At least then it would be consistent with their claims that abortion is “murder” and that the lives of innocent babies must be protected. You DO understand this point, right?
It’s true what they say. Silence speaks volumes.